Idoicy in stem cells

Are my ideas worth officals to see

  • YES

    Votes: 7 53.8%

  • NO

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • Total voters
    13
S

skidochufada

Registered Senior Member
Some say that taking stem cells is wrong....

I say if it is forced its wrong, but here are my views that people needs to see.

If a woman has an abortion, new laws will throw away the fetus and not take the stem cells. Whats the point of wasting the stem cells, when they could help so many!!! So what I am trying to say is that all abortions, the fetus that would normaly be wasted should go to a stem cell research facility, where they could study and use the cells

Also, many people think what the Japanese are doing is wrong. If you don't know what I'm talking about, the Japanese scientest took a donated egg, and use donated sperm to make stem cells grow. People say using those stem cells is wrong, because its killing a purposful baby [ most abortions come from accidents] [ some say " dont make life to kill"] but with a donated egg, there is no way that the baby would be a baby. It doesnt have the mother to provide nutrients and the blood, so you would just have stem cells.

Some people say that stem cells= murder, but whats the point in wasting a possible cure and savior......?
 
Last edited:
you right it would be wastefull not to use them.

however last i heard Stem cells don't just come from the fetus but can be found in the placenta, nose and spinal chord. (i'm not sure about those last two)

if any of those prove a half viable source, coupled with cells obtained from abortions, we will be helping so many more people.
 
skidochufada said:
should go to a stem cell research facility, where they could study and use what they do...
Click to expand...

Well, in the right facility, the scientists could create a human in their laboratory. Would you approve of that?

And if not, you've just put limits on the scientific research, right? And that's what opponets are doing ...putting limits on scientific research.

And if you do approve the laboratory creation of humans, are they to be accorded all the laws as if they were "normal" humans? And what if the laboratory could create the "perfect" human?

See? The laws (and you!) should weigh all of those possibilities BEFORE making the laws and rules of such research. There could be, probably are, far-reaching consequences in such research ....and worse, some of those consequences are, at this time, totally unknown. How do you deal with that?

Personally, I don't know enough about it and what can be done to make up my mind. I'll have to leave that to y'all .....who seem to know far more than all the scientists and researchers in the world! :)

Baron Max
 
So your suggesting theres a market for stem cells, and anyone could buy them,and that would make it fair... Without proper knowledge that would be down... The limits are not really there, its just that you dont want to give anyone the cells that couldnt use them..

The only way we can make humans is artifical insemination. Unless we had the technolgy to create a device that nurtured the cells into a form, and without the cells to copy from wouldnt the cells take after the holding speciman cup, and become a circuler human......

I guess the only perfect human we could make is if we altered the seman, but i did think of the consequences, and i am against abortion itself....
 
Stems cells biggest source are fetus, and is said [but not proffen] that there is one stem cell in every sperm :eek:
 
Last edited:
For starters, the issue that people are up in arms about once again is not whether or not stem cell research is moral, but whether or not abortions in general are moral. And that is a question that science does not answer, and in fact tries to seperate itself from.

Many stem cells can be collected from the placenta of a newborn. There are (extremely expensive) programs already in place wherein a parent can request a doctor to remove these cells from their child's placenta and store them on ice for the life of that child. They do this in hopes that one day, when stem cell research has reached the point where it is possible to induce the differentiation of these cells into the cells needed to repair serious nerve damage (as in the case of spinal cord or cerebral injury) that the stem cells taken can be used to heal their child.

I think stem cell technology HAS to advance. If for no other reason but than to show that science cannot be influenced by political or moral issues that attempt to retard critial advancements.
 
I think that if a fetus is going to be thrown out in an abortion, they should st least use it for scientific research. I have read many articles about the placenta being used to extract stem cells. I may be working in this field soon enough (Biology major) and research opportunities have opened up since the latest advancements.

As zougirl stated, there will always be groups against abortion who say that stem cell research will "encourage" abortion. There are also groups who claim that stem cell research is "playing God" who tend to be the same people who are against GMOs and other useful science. The placenta research bypasses many issues that impede progress but there will always be public and government opposition.

Widespread stem cell research will change the face of medical and biological science. I think that people live in fear of this drastic change and this is why there is such opposition to this exciting research.
 
Oh dear, there are so many misconceptions and misunderstandings in this thread that I don’t know where to begin. :eek:

Firstly, people need to distinguish between embryonic stem (ES) cells and “adult” stem cells. ES cells are a special type of stem cell that can give rise to all the cell types of the body. (Actually, a more accurate statement is that ES cells can give rise to cells of <B><I>all three germ layers</I></B>, but I won’t digress on that point here.) This is the reason why they are (potentially) so valuable to medical science because they might be used to replace the cells that are lost from a large variety of different degenerative diseases as well as acute injuries. The replacement cells might come from <I>in vitro</I> culturing of ES cells of from the <I>in vivo</I> transplantation of ES cells.

Now, ES cells are only present during a narrow window of very early embryonic development. They are present during a stage of embryo development known as the <B><I>blastocyst</I></B> stage which, in humans, occurs about one week after fertilization. The developing embryo is known as a blastocyst when it is a hollow ball of a few hundred cells. Inside the blastocyst are about a dozen ES cells. Shortly after the blastocyst stage, a human embryo implants into the uterine wall of the womb. From this stage onwards all the ES cells are gone – they have differentiated into more lineage restricted stem cells types of the three germ layers.

<I><U>So the take-home message is that ES cells can only be extracted from a blastocyst. They cannot be obtained from later foetal tissue, such as tissue from an abortion. Thus, the <B<>only</B> source of human ES cells are leftover blastocysts from IVF treatments or from blastocysts created by nuclear transfer cloning</U></I>.

Now, “adult” stem cells are another matter. Basically, most of the tissues of our body have stem cells that divide to produce new cells to replace old ones. They are the only immortal cells in our body. These “adult” stem cells are different to ES cells in that they are lineage restricted ie. they produce only one type of cell that is appropriate for the tissue in which they reside. (Actually, sometimes adult stem cells can produce 2 or 3 different lineages, but even so the different cell types in still restricted to one particular tissue type.)

Basically, any stem cell that is not an ES cell is an “adult” stem cell and is lineage restricted. So the stem cells that are extracted from umbilical cords are not ES cells even though they come from a new born baby. (Umbilical cord stem cells are hematopoietic stem cells that produce the various blood cell lineages.)

It is common for the religiously brainwashed to (erroneously) argue that the use of adult stem cells in therapeutic treatments make the use of ES cells unnecessary. They say this because they are opposed to the destruction of spare IVF embryos during the isolation of ES cells. Of course, excess embryos are always created during the IVF procedure and these excess embryos are destined for destruction anyway, so why not use them for the benefit of all? Scientists using spare IVF embryos for stem cell research are not causing the destruction of any more embryos than would otherwise occur. It is a testament to the illogical viewpoint of the religiously brainwashed that many of the people who argue against ES cell research have no problem with IVF for infertile couples even though the later results in the destruction of more embryos than medical research could ever achieve.

The fact of the matter is that, at present, adult stem cell technology cannot replace the need for ES cell research. They are difficult to isolate from an adult person. In fact, only hematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow can be routinely isolated from an adult person. Furthermore, as discussed above, adult stem cells give rise to only one type of cell and, thus, are very limited in their therapeutic potential. The use of adult stem cells has one great advantage in therapeutic treatments – if they can be extracted from a patient then they are a perfect genetic match for that patient. ES cells (and any cells derived from them <I>in vitro</I>) will not be a match for a patient and any such therapy will need to be accompanied by anti-rejection medication. Of course, cloning by nuclear transfer (so-called “therapeutic cloning”) is the way around this ie. clone a cell from a patient, let it develop into a blastocyst, then extract the ES cells from the blastocyst which will be a perfect match.

The use of stem cells of any type is very much in its infancy and scientists need to work with both ES cells and adult stem cells in order to derive the best possible treatments.<P>
 
yada yada yada, were we supposed to read all that, because we dont care the diference, almost all stem cells form into the cells they form around...

Its kinda like tofu.... If you blend Tofu with a vanila, milk, cream mix, the tofu will taste like the mix, becuase it tastes like what it cooks with.......
 
The private businesses have been and are doing stem cell research. I don't understand why the government has to pay for every new medical idea that comes along for nothing ever gets paid back to the government when they give the tax payers money out to the private research companies. That's right, those monies that we taxpayers pay go directly into private companies and we never get paid it paid back because its a gift to these private firms doing the research and development. So if stem cells ever are found to really be benifical you'll see the price for them rise from the companies that have the patents on them and you'll be or your insurance company will pay the costs.
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
...Now, “adult” stem cells are another matter. Basically, most of the tissues of our body have stem cells that divide to produce new cells to replace old ones. They are the only immortal cells in our body. These “adult” stem cells are different to ES cells in that they are lineage restricted ie. they produce only one type of cell that is appropriate for the tissue in which they reside. (Actually, sometimes adult stem cells can produce 2 or 3 different lineages, but even so the different cell types in still restricted to one particular tissue type.)

Basically, any stem cell that is not an ES cell is an “adult” stem cell and is lineage restricted. So the stem cells that are extracted from umbilical cords are not ES cells even though they come from a new born baby. (Umbilical cord stem cells are hematopoietic stem cells that produce the various blood cell lineages.)...
Click to expand...

(Firstly I did actually read all of what you said. Very clear and informative)

I saw an article in newscientist a while ago that claimed they had found a way to reverse differentiate adult cells to form stem cells. Embryonic stem cells. It was some sort of chemical/hormone that was simply mixed with the cells - and it worked.
 
Trilobyte said:
I saw an article in newscientist a while ago that claimed they had found a way to reverse differentiate adult cells to form stem cells. Embryonic stem cells. It was some sort of chemical/hormone that was simply mixed with the cells - and it worked.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I remember seeing something about a technique for “transforming” cells into an ES cell state. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens. I think we should be pursuing therapeutic cloning as a source of tissue-typed ES cells with maximum vigor.

Given that the only human adult stem cell type that can be routinely extracted are hematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow, all the research on using them for therapeutic treatments (other than for hematopoietic disorders) revolves around attempts to get them to trans-differentiate ie. make a different cell type, such as neurons. It is relatively easy to get HSCs to do this <I>in vitro</I>, but no one wants to transplant such cell-culture derived neurons into the brains/spinal cords of patients because cell culture is an artificial system and no one trusts that they are the “genuine article”. There is some <I>in vivo</I> evidence from mouse models that HSCs transplanted into the brain will produce neurons, and these are the results that are always seized upon by advocates of the idea that adult stem cell therapies remove the need for any ES cell research. But there is conflicting data as to what is happening to these HSCs. In some instances, they appear to generate neurons because they fuse with neuronal cells, thus making it appear as though subsequent cell divisions have achieved transdifferentiation.

Anyway, as I said before, both adult and ES cell research is required to realize the potential of stem cell therapies.
<P>
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
....The use of adult stem cells has one great advantage in therapeutic treatments – if they can be extracted from a patient then they are a perfect genetic match for that patient. ES cells (and any cells derived from them <I>in vitro</I>) will not be a match for a patient and any such therapy will need to be accompanied by anti-rejection medication. Of course, cloning by nuclear transfer (so-called “therapeutic cloning”) is the way around this ie. clone a cell from a patient, let it develop into a blastocyst, then extract the ES cells from the blastocyst which will be a perfect match....
Click to expand...
Is it also possible that one could swap out the DNA of a foreign ES and replace it with the patients DNA?
 
Hercules Rockefeller: Thanx for an excellent description of the science of stem cell research. I have not seen a better one elsewhere.

I am sorry that Shelly wrote Frankenstein about 200 years ago. If written in modern times, it might not have so strongly established a concept that some knowledge is forbidden. There might be methods of obtaining and/or using knowledge that are unethical and should be made illegal, but there is no knowledge that should be viewed as being forbidden to acquire.

BTW: I take care to distinguish the concepts of ethical, legal, and moral. More people should do so.

Perhaps if people viewed a human clone as merely an identical twin, they would not be so horrified at the idea. If viewed this way, the ethical issue of the clone’s rights are simple to understand. He/she has the rights of any other human being. Those with certain religious beliefs might have a problem with this issue: They might view the clone as not having been created by god and hence as not having a soul. This I view as a moral issue, not an ethical one. To me, many moral issues are subjective, while ethical issues can more often be made objective.

I suspect that many anti-cloners are imagining some wealthy person creating clones and using them as organ donors. There have been some SciFi stories with this theme. This is as unethical as using your own twin brother as an involuntary organ donor. There is no great ethical debate on this issue.

I admit that the waters can be muddied in various ways. For example: A clone could perhaps be created with no cerebral cortex and a claim could be made that it is not a person with rights. I could present arguments on both sides of this situation.
 
As with ALL technology/discovery, we will eventually use the stem cells to advance our standard of living, or misuse if you prefer. The issue is not if but when these cells are studied and used, it just seems likely we (the United States) will not be on the forefront of discovery this time, as we are stifled by what is (in my opinion) outdated Dogma.
Pity that....but Humans as a whole will undoubtably benefit greatly from what stem cells will provide in the future.
 
You are missing the point, that scientists are harvesting embryos which is wrong, its like this (1) take an abortion, if it is female it already has viable egg cells, add a sperm
and you can now grow a daughter from that one, repeat over and over and you get a never ending cycle of harvest, now what bloody choice did that petential baby get
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top