Embryonic Stem Cell Research (proper version of the poll)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Since it seems that's where the real divide is.

I still see no reason to oppose it.

[Vosem]

Tbh, I think everyone interpreted the last poll as meaning this. Still yes (obviously, normal).

[Goldwater]

Tbh, I think everyone interpreted the last poll as meaning this. Still yes (obviously, normal).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For the time being, no.  We have yet to come even close to exhausting other less ethically problematic forms of stem cell research than cell lines derived from the destruction of human embryos.  I won't go so far as to say embryonic stem cell research should never be pursued, but the need for it as opposed to other stem cell techniques is so far not proven. Indeed, all currently in use stem cell therapies are not using embryonic stem cells.  Moreover, autologous stem cells will generally be superior to embryonic stem cells for any purpose, with their only limitation being that we do not yet have techniques to derive all cell types from them.

It might be a good idea to begin a systematic effort to engage in the banking of amniotic stem cells, tho I am uncertain that the costs justify that yet.

[barfbag]

yes

[Grumpier Than Thou]

We have yet to come even close to exhausting other less ethically problematic forms of stem cell research...

Fortunately, my grasp of ethics is virtually non-existent. Support.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We have yet to come even close to exhausting other less ethically problematic forms of stem cell research...

Fortunately, my grasp of ethics is virtually non-existent. Support.

If there were some indication that there was some potential use of embryonic stem cells that absolutely could not be done by other types of stem cells, I'd agree, but so far there is not.

I don't agree with the it's life from the moment of fertilization viewpoint myself, but it's not a totally illogical one and thus I'm leery of pushing the ethical boundary here without cause.  For now, research into animal ES cells to pave the way for human ES use if other techniques prove inadequate and also researching methods of obtaining ES cells without destroying embryos both have my support.

We tend too often to rush ahead without considering the ethical implications of "progress".  So long as progress continues to be made in the use of the non-embryonic stem cells, that's where we should focus research.  Given the ethical concerns, embryonic stem cells should only be considered once other options have been exhausted and found lacking.

[ElectionsGuy]

Still Yes.

[7,052,770]

Yes (pro-life)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes (pro-life)

So far there has not been a single use of ES cells in either human or animal research in which it has been shown that ES cells are capable of doing anything that iPS cells cannot.  Given the actual science, it appears to me that for once the loony right is correct.  Many supporters of ES cell research are not motivated by the science involved, but by the hope that by deriving a therapy that requires the destruction of human embryos they can use that as a weapon against the extreme anti-abortion position that life begins at fertilization.  Your claim that you are in favor of ES cell research because you are "pro-life" marks  that as a likely primary motivation for you.

I'm not tied to that proposition that life begins at fertilization, indeed, I don't subscribe to it, but it is a logical one, so I'm not willing to dismiss it without some evidence there is a reason to do so.  So far that evidence has not been found. While we should continue animal studies to confirm that ES cells offer no benefits that iPS cells could offer, at this point we've done enough research that points in favor of iPS cells likely being able to do anything we want to do with stem cells that I'm opposed to any further government funding of human embryonic stem cell research at this time.

Not only are iPS cells without the potential ethical problems of ES cells, because they are autologous, they are don't involve the risks of tissue rejection that ES cells would have in any application for which either can be used.  The only fly in the ointment with iPS cells is that some techniques of producing them yield stem cells that are more tumorigenic.  As a general rule, techniques that are more efficient at producing iPS cells are also more tumorigenic.  Of course, a lower yield on a larger number of starter cells would produce the same number of iPS cells at a lower cancer risk. But even ES cells increase cancer risk, and we're continuing to make major strides in reducing the cancer risks of stem cell therapies, whether they involve ES cells or iPS cells.  There is reason to hope that by the time stem cell therapies are ready to go beyond the scientific trial stage the cancer problem will have been licked, and if it hasn't, it's likely to pull the plug on the use of stem cells regardless of source, ES or iPS.

[PJ]

Yes, again

[Person Man]

Yes (pro-life)

So far there has not been a single use of ES cells in either human or animal research in which it has been shown that ES cells are capable of doing anything that iPS cells cannot.  Given the actual science, it appears to me that for once the loony right is correct.  Many supporters of ES cell research are not motivated by the science involved, but by the hope that by deriving a therapy that requires the destruction of human embryos they can use that as a weapon against the extreme anti-abortion position that life begins at fertilization.  Your claim that you are in favor of ES cell research because you are "pro-life" marks  that as a likely primary motivation for you.

I'm not tied to that proposition that life begins at fertilization, indeed, I don't subscribe to it, but it is a logical one, so I'm not willing to dismiss it without some evidence there is a reason to do so.  So far that evidence has not been found. While we should continue animal studies to confirm that ES cells offer no benefits that iPS cells could offer, at this point we've done enough research that points in favor of iPS cells likely being able to do anything we want to do with stem cells that I'm opposed to any further government funding of human embryonic stem cell research at this time.

Not only are iPS cells without the potential ethical problems of ES cells, because they are autologous, they are don't involve the risks of tissue rejection that ES cells would have in any application for which either can be used.  The only fly in the ointment with iPS cells is that some techniques of producing them yield stem cells that are more tumorigenic.  As a general rule, techniques that are more efficient at producing iPS cells are also more tumorigenic.  Of course, a lower yield on a larger number of starter cells would produce the same number of iPS cells at a lower cancer risk. But even ES cells increase cancer risk, and we're continuing to make major strides in reducing the cancer risks of stem cell therapies, whether they involve ES cells or iPS cells.  There is reason to hope that by the time stem cell therapies are ready to go beyond the scientific trial stage the cancer problem will have been licked, and if it hasn't, it's likely to pull the plug on the use of stem cells regardless of source, ES or iPS.

Do you expect that the cancer problem will be licked?

[Maxwell]

Yes.

[RedSLC]

Absolutely.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you expect that the cancer problem will be licked?

Probably.  Certainly we'll need to if we're going to get effective therapies out of stem cells, and not just because of the cancer problem.  After all, we have to be able to cue the cells as to what we want them to do and when we want them to do it and where we want them to do it for there to be effective therapies.  The when and where problems are intimately linked to the tumorigenic problem that stem cell therapies currently have.

[Person Man]

Do you expect that the cancer problem will be licked?

Probably.  Certainly we'll need to if we're going to get effective therapies out of stem cells, and not just because of the cancer problem.  After all, we have to be able to cue the cells as to what we want them to do and when we want them to do it and where we want them to do it for there to be effective therapies.  The when and where problems are intimately linked to the tumorigenic problem that stem cell therapies currently have.

Though I'd imagine if we are able to solve these problems, we could use what we have learned about the life cycle at the cellular and chemical level to make just about any cancer (instead of the "sexiest" ones with the most of research) at worse no more dangerous than Type II Diabetes or HIV, instead of certain ones still being a death sentence. Further, it could lead to a way to get drastically higher maximum life expectancies. My guess is that there is nothing we don't understand about fundamental Physics that would stop us from doing this and its simply a function of having enough computing power to rapidly theorize, emulate and test solutions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you expect that the cancer problem will be licked?

Probably.  Certainly we'll need to if we're going to get effective therapies out of stem cells, and not just because of the cancer problem.  After all, we have to be able to cue the cells as to what we want them to do and when we want them to do it and where we want them to do it for there to be effective therapies.  The when and where problems are intimately linked to the tumorigenic problem that stem cell therapies currently have.

Though I'd imagine if we are able to solve these problems, we could use what we have learned about the life cycle at the cellular and chemical level to make just about any cancer (instead of the "sexiest" ones with the most of research) at worse no more dangerous than Type II Diabetes or HIV, instead of certain ones still being a death sentence. Further, it could lead to a way to get drastically higher maximum life expectancies. My guess is that there is nothing we don't understand about fundamental Physics that would stop us from doing this and its simply a function of having enough computing power to rapidly theorize, emulate and test solutions.

We're already seeing cancer treatments tailed to the specific genetic defect that is causing a particular person's cancer.  The difficulty is targeting just the cancer cells for destruction or immobilization. It may well be that we're never able to quite do that.  What our knowledge may allow us to do is engage in even more radical solutions.  Suppose someone has what is now inoperable liver cancer and the only therapy we might try would also kill the liver along with the cancerous liver cells.  One possible solution would be to use stem cells along with other tools to grow a new liver outside the body, then when it is ready, go ahead and zap the patient with the treatment that kills the liver and the cancer and then transplant in the new liver.

[Person Man]

Do you expect that the cancer problem will be licked?

Probably.  Certainly we'll need to if we're going to get effective therapies out of stem cells, and not just because of the cancer problem.  After all, we have to be able to cue the cells as to what we want them to do and when we want them to do it and where we want them to do it for there to be effective therapies.  The when and where problems are intimately linked to the tumorigenic problem that stem cell therapies currently have.

Though I'd imagine if we are able to solve these problems, we could use what we have learned about the life cycle at the cellular and chemical level to make just about any cancer (instead of the "sexiest" ones with the most of research) at worse no more dangerous than Type II Diabetes or HIV, instead of certain ones still being a death sentence. Further, it could lead to a way to get drastically higher maximum life expectancies. My guess is that there is nothing we don't understand about fundamental Physics that would stop us from doing this and its simply a function of having enough computing power to rapidly theorize, emulate and test solutions.

We're already seeing cancer treatments tailed to the specific genetic defect that is causing a particular person's cancer.  The difficulty is targeting just the cancer cells for destruction or immobilization. It may well be that we're never able to quite do that.  What our knowledge may allow us to do is engage in even more radical solutions.  Suppose someone has what is now inoperable liver cancer and the only therapy we might try would also kill the liver along with the cancerous liver cells.  One possible solution would be to use stem cells along with other tools to grow a new liver outside the body, then when it is ready, go ahead and zap the patient with the treatment that kills the liver and the cancer and then transplant in the new liver.

Something tells me we could need some sort of mastery of superposition and other quantum Physics knowledge to do the former. It would seem reasonable that such thing was made practical around the end of this century. For the mean time, the latter approach seems to be something that can be easily done by mid century and could be used not only to treat cancer but could be adapted to treat just about any age related thing but something like Alzheimer's. This could allow some modest but substantial increase in average expectancy and maximum life spans.

[TNF]

sure is 2006 in here