Stem Cells and Ethics

I strongly recommend doing some research, NJ.Try here:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.aspWhere do embryonic stemm cells come from?

quote:

---

Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro”in an in vitro fertilization clinic”and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body

---

How are they grown?

quote:

---

Over the course of several days, the cells of the inner cell mass proliferate and begin to crowd the culture dish. When this occurs, they are removed gently and plated into several fresh culture dishes. The process of replating the cells is repeated many times and for many months, and is called subculturing. Each cycle of subculturing the cells is referred to as a passage. After six months or more, the original 30 cells of the inner cell mass yield millions of embryonic stem cells

---

quote:

---

Embryonic stem cells that have proliferated in cell culture for six or more months without differentiating, are pluripotent, and appear genetically normal are referred to as an embryonic stem cell line.

---

As you can plainly see, embryonic stem cells are derived from in-vitro fertilizations, donated with the consent of the owners. They are not allowed to grow to a point where they could even be called human.Pros and Cons of Adult and Embryonic Stem Cells
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

quote:

---

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out

---

Why use or create embryonic stem cell lines?
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp

quote:

---

Studies of human embryonic stem cells may yield information about the complex events that occur during human development. A primary goal of this work is to identify how undifferentiated stem cells become differentiated

---

That's one thing that adult stem cells can't do. At least. Here's another:

quote:

---

A better understanding of the genetic and molecular controls of these processes may yield information about how such diseases arise and suggest new strategies for therapy

---

Yet another use for embryonic stem cell lines:

quote:

---

Human stem cells could also be used to test new drugs. For example, new medications could be tested for safety on differentiated cells generated from human pluripotent cell lines

---

But here's the catch:

quote:

---

the promise of stem cell therapies is an exciting one, but significant technical hurdles remain that will only be overcome through years of intensive research.

---

If we severely restrict what we can research, how can we overcme the obstacles that face both adult and embryonic stem cell use?By the way, the US has less than 30 viable embryonic stem cell lines. We only found out how to create human embryonic stem cell lines in 1998. The first was from a university in Wisconsin. IN 2001, when federal funding was limited to lines already created, only 60ish had been created. And roughly half of those are not viable due to numberous reasons. As far as I can find, there are approximately 120 embryonic stem cell lines around the world that are far better for research use than what federal funding will help with. We can only apply for funding for around 25 ancient lines. As to your point about ample funding. Research is expensive. Why do you think most research projects are done with university and/or federal funding? Because that's who has the money. If the federal government can sink 500 billion into defense, surely it can afford to spend money on research. Sure, we're finding ways to circumvent the federal funding ban, but having federal funding available makes research a hell of a lot easier. False on at least one account. The stem cells do metastasize, but the tumors are benign (as in, not cancerous. they can still be quite fatal). They can potentially give you cancer, but only if the line being used is quite old.The final problem with all these objections is this. A lot of the anti-embryonic stem cell people say that science isn't figuring it out, that the problems are insurmountable, that it's too difficult, or whatever excuse they have. Whatever happened to believing that we can do or can figure out anything we want to? Whatever happened to the can-do attitude? And do you really want the "shining light of the free world" to fall behind in something?

And I assume where you can show someone in this thread suggested taking embryos out of the mother's room and dissecting them so they can conduct Nazi medical experiments?I'm sorry but your Message 56 has got to be one of the funniest posts I have ever read here at EvC.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Because that's the precise moment where one second you don't exist, but do in the next. Oh, really? Is that why when they see a pregnant woman, people ask how the baby is doing? Is that why they want to know the name of the amorphous blob in your uterus? Is that why parents are sad when that amorphous blob dies? Oh, wait... According to you, they don't die because they were never really alive to begin with. Retreat? How about, we go around and around over the same points endlessly until I get sick of answers 42 nastygrams per every post that I write? That sounds a little more in keeping with reality. That's not actually growing. That would be like saying stalagtites or stalagmites grow when accumulation might be the more appropriate term.But all this is hair splitting. Are you actually saying that an embryo is not organic material? But they aren't supposed to be, Crash. I have an objection to test tube babies. RAZD says that I advocate playing God, but harvesting embryo's fits that criteria better.Aside from which, if you really just want stem cells, then get them from an umbilical cord or a placenta. If you can get them from these sources, then it completey renders the argument moot. Its a win/win situation this way.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

That is the big question. Not all stem cells are equal, and until we have actually fully characterised the potency of different types we wont know which is suited for which task, the stem cells from cord blood and placental tissues may well lack several of the features considered important in true embryonic stem cells, they may lack the potency for certain cell types. Its fine to say there is a moral calculus involved, but it is dishonest to cheat by insisting that we not try and work out exactly what the terms of the calculus are before performing it.TTFN,WK

I disagree. I didn't exist, at that point. I had no name; certainly I have no memory of that point. The precise moment that event occured passed completely unremarked by anyone - so nobody even knows when it happened.Nothing that makes me who I am was present at that point. So in what sense can I be said to have come into existence? Yeah, really. Pull out your wallet and look up your birthdate if you don't believe me; it's printed right on your driver's license. Call up your mom and ask her if that was the date you were born or the date on which she was having sex.I'm sure your mother will be happy to clear up your confusion. I don't recall saying "they were never alive to begin with." The zygote is very much alive.I'd ask you to direct your rebuttals to the arguments I'm actually making, not the arguments of a hypothetical strawbortionist. Oh, poor baby! Do you find that your relentlessly anti-woman attitudes are offensive to the rest of us?Sack up. They get bigger, don't they? What, that's an optical illusion? Get real. Crystals grow. No, I'm saying that "growth" is not the definitive character of what it means to be a human being. Do you? This would be the first I've heard about it, despite asking you several times.Do you think you could clarify your stance on in vitro fertilization as fertility treatment? Since this is the main source of the human embryos used to harvest embryonic stem cells.Also - could you specify your stance on female menstruation, which terminates far more fertilized zygotes than any fertility treatment or stem cell researcher? They're not embryonic stem cells, and they're not pluripotent. Surely these will be great sources for totipotent stem cells, and used in a number of treatments - but they don't have the same potential.Research on adult stem cells doesn't obviate the need to research on embryonic stem cells.

DNA, down to the last transposon, is exactly the same for both. That means they are no different, genetically, which renders your argument moot-- and genetically is the angle you were coming from with this argument.If mental capacity, at the time of death, is some how a (dis)qualifier in your mind, then make that your argument. You said that a fetus is just a clump of cells. If they are, then so are we since genetically we are one and the same.

quote:

---

It is in God's hands.

---

Why would God need to micromanage us in order for it to be in His hands? If God established gravity and He made the genetic schematics for your body, you going splat on the concrete is a consequence of His law. I think that you think God must control us completely when you hear someone say, "Its in God's hands."

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Yes, which is why you are assimilating two different issues. You are totally missing the point. And I'm beginning to think that you are just trying to derail the conversation. In vitro fertilization is for women who cannot conceive by natural conception, and then implant that embryo in a surrogate mother. But that's where its supposed to go! In the uterus... There is only one safe place for an embryo to grow... In the uterus.Whether in vitro was the process by which an embryo came to being, or if it was by natural conception is beside the point. The point is, there is no good reason to do it with an ample supply of those cells exist without harming a life. Proponents of abortion."One potential source of stem cells comes from early fetal tissue recovered during a narrow window of development. In development, an embryo is called a fetus at about 7-8 weeks following fertilization. At about 4-5 weeks of development, embryonic germ cells, the precursors to the egg and sperm cells, are found in the developing ovary or testis, structures only about 2 mm long.

​

In 1998, the isolation, culture and partial characterization of embryonic germ cells were reported. The cells were derived from human aborted tissue. When isolated and cultured, these germ cells were shown to have properties similar to stem cells isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts.

​

However, some evidence has suggested that embryonic germ cells may be more limited in their ability to become many different cell types because they are isolated from tissue that is further along in development (several weeks as opposed to only 4-5 days). More research will be required to understand the properties and behavior of these cells to determine their usefulness for future cell therapies. Because of various discrepancies in federal regulations, stem cells taken from fetuses are subject to different rules that stem cells derived from embryos." -linkYou think all those aborted babies only go in the trash bin? Why would they if they could further profit off of it? Come one man, think about it.Why do you think Planned Parenthood is such an advocate for Stem Cell research that doesn't entail umbilical cords or placenta? There's money to be made.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

double postEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : double post

Nem, embryonic stem cells are not harvested from aborted fetuses. The cells are harvested at the blastocyst stage, most women wouldn't even know they are pregnant at that stage. It is even before the implantation stage, less than seven days from fertilization.If you have a beef, it is with the fertilization clinics, not stem cell research. Stem cell research puts to use cells that would otherwise be thrown away. You don't like that more eggs are fertilized than can be used. Fine, argue that point. That the cells are now used for needed medical research is a better option than throwing out the unused cells.

The thread is about embryonic stem cells, which are harvested from embryos that have never been implanted. So, no, I'm not "assimilating" anything. Surrogates aren't always used; in fact its rare that a woman requires a surrogate.In vitro fertility treatments fertilize several embryos at once and then implant only one or two into the mother. The extra embryos are typically stored for some period in deep freeze until the pregnancy can be confirmed, and then they're either stored for future pregnancies or destroyed. Don't be disingenuous. There are no sources of embryonic stem cells except for cultures harvested from embryos - embryos that were already slated for destruction. What "aborted babies", NJ? Abortion isn't a source of stem cells. It never has been! You can't get stem cells from aborted fetuses, because they've long since passed the state of having embryonic stem cells! Oh, for god's sake. Since you can't harvest embryonic stem cells from aborted fetuses, this is perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever seen you write.You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

The problem is that once you unite a spermatazoa with an ovum, you have a brand new life. I know you'll object, but hear me out. What if Bush, or the next president, were to say that they will accept those embryo's, frozen in time, to be used for Stem Cell research. The only stipulation is that you must use only those that are already available.Then after some time they find that they can cure, say, Parkinson's. But now they are left without any Stem Cells, and they've already agreed to the terms of the agreement. What then? Sure there is. All the information to make you who you are was there the second the sperm united with the egg. Which, again, means that if they are just cells, then so are you. In fact, the only reason why they don't grow into their full potential is becasue someone has prevented them from doing so. The baby at the time of birth already has specified cells in his/her body-- say, cells that are totipotent to the formation/maintenance of bones. But with things like the placenta, the potential is great. And the best news is that you have an unlimited supply and it removes ethical concerns.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Do you understand that embroynic stem cells can be cultured? You don't need to harvest an embryo every single time you want a stem cell.You do have to harvest from an embryo when you want a new line of stem cells, and since none of the research lines are suitable for human implantation (because they've all been contaminated with exposure to mouse-cell substrate), that's something that's going to have to be done if there can be any cures developed from embryonic stem cells. I don't know about you, but my genetics don't really make up too much of what I consider "myself." I mean, if genetics was all that it took, wouldn't you have to consider identical twins to be the same person?I doubt that you do, of course. So it should be obvious to you that you already see that human beings are a lot more than just genetics - that, indeed, genetics has very little to do with what we consider "ourselves." It's just that you've decided to ignore what you already know for purposes of argument.Which is somewhat disingenuous. NJ - nobody's come down against harvesting placental cells. But the fact that totipotent cells can be taken from the placenta doesn't obviate the potential embryonic, pluripotent cells have - and it doesn't obviate the need to research such cells.

Uniting two living cells into one living cell makes a "new" life ... sorry doesn't add up -- the material was just as alive before being united. There is no magic "something new" added at that point. First off your president is making policy based on religious tenets -- he is playing god.Second stem cells can be cultured -- why do you think they are still around after your foolish presidents foolish edict? Magic newness?Third you STILL have stem cells continually added to that storage in fertility clinics that will NEVER be placed in a uterus, stem cells where 60% of the owners say they would donate them to science: what right do you have to interfere with their decision? They are the ones that KNOW that the cells will never be placed in a uterus because they OWN them.Stop trying to create artificial circumstances to bolster your position when it is indefensible in the REAL situation. Correct. The OWNERS have decided they don't need the cells for that purpose, which as OWNERS is their RIGHT. Now you want to do some nazi experiments on living babies to remove cell material? What kind of ghoul are you that you would prefer this to using extra unwanted never to be used cell material from fertility clinics?AND you have not established that these are as good for medical treatments as fetal stem cells.And you still are failing utterly to deal with the issue of all those piles of cells left over from fertility clinics that will NEVER be put in a uterus.What is more ethical -- donate the cells to science or donate them to the trash heap? Hint: one saves lives.That is the ONLY question for this thread.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And is present in (almost) every cell of your body. Clearly, as there is no prohibition against killing those cells, then why should there be for others that have the same information? Uh-huh. But these cells in my body are in a formation that can feel pain, think and remember. Thus, even though they are just cells, they give rise to a self - something more than cellular processes. The only reason that your skin cells don't grow into a new person is because they have been prevented from doing so. Someone could indeed take a skin cell from you and, through SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer), actualise the genetic potential within them. That is how Dolly was born (albeit from a breast cell rather than a skin cell). So, if there is no prohibition against the killing of skin cells, why should there be against the killing of other cells which also have the potential to grow into a full person, if only someone would let them?

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Could you please point out where I concentrated on the genetic aspect of the matter? I have traced back our exchange and I can't find any mention of it in what I said. Maybe you are confused by the theme of the thread, where genetic ownership is discussed. I have made that my argument. If you remember, I said:

quote:

---

We are not just any clump of cells. A large contingent of our cells forms a brain which is responsible for our having a personality. I'd say that constitutes a huge difference with an embryo of a few days old.

---

I think it is very reasonable to make a distinction between a clump of a dozen undifferentiated cells, where no mental processes of any kind take place, and an adult human being who very clearly is a clump of cells with attitude, so to speak. So, yes, I do think that mental capacity is a part of the equation, I don't see why I shouldn't. After all, it's a rather conspicuous, if not dramatic difference, isn't it?(Re "It is in God's hands": if you don't mind let's not pursue this issue any further because it is off-topic.)

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.