Stem Cell Research May No Longer Be a Moral Issue

[Frodo]

this could finally take one hot-button issue off the table:

Stem Cell Advances May Make Moral Issue Moot

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 6, 2005; Page A07

If only human embryonic stem cells could sprout anew from something other than a human embryo. Researchers could harvest them and perhaps harness their great biomedical potential without destroying what some consider to be a budding human life.

But like a low-calorie banana split or the proverbial free lunch, there is no such thing as an embryo-free embryonic stem cell.
   
Or is there?

In recent months, a number of researchers have begun to assemble intriguing evidence that it is possible to generate embryonic stem cells without having to create or destroy new human embryos.

The research is still young and largely unpublished, and in some cases it is limited to animal cells. Scientists doing the work also emphasize their desire to have continued access to human embryos for now. It is largely by analyzing how nature makes stem cells, deep inside days-old embryos, that these researchers are learning how to make the cells themselves.

Yet the gathering consensus among biologists is that embryonic stem cells are made, not born -- and that embryos are not an essential ingredient. That means that today's heated debates over embryo rights could fade in the aftermath of technical advances allowing scientists to convert ordinary cells into embryonic stem cells.

"That would really get around all the moral and ethical concerns," said James F. Battey, chief of the stem cell task force at the National Institutes of Health. The techniques under study qualify for federal grant support because embryos are not harmed, he noted. And eventually the work could boost the number of stem cell colonies, or lines, available for study by taxpayer-supported researchers.

link

[Platypus]

Umbilical cords.

[Frodo]

Umbilical cords.

Could you elaborate?

[A18]

I'm not morally opposed to it because of that. I'm morally opposed to taking taxpayer money and spending it on things that have nothing to do with justice -- the sole end with which the government should be concerned.

[Everett]

Umbilical cords.

Could you elaborate?

I think scientists can harvest stem cells from umbilical cords. Can't confirm that, though.

[opebo]

I think we should use the fetus, in principle, even if there is an alternative.  Defy the dark-ages types.

[Jake]

Umbilical cords.

Could you elaborate?

I think scientists can harvest stem cells from umbilical cords. Can't confirm that, though.

I fairly certain they are very rich in stem cells. Something to look into definitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Cord_blood_stem_cells

[Bono]

Umbilical cords.

Could you elaborate?

I think scientists can harvest stem cells from umbilical cords. Can't confirm that, though.

I fairly certain they are very rich in stem cells. Something to look into definitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Cord_blood_stem_cells

whatever,t hat's not practical in, what, 90% of the cases?

[John Dibble]

Umbilical cords.

Could you elaborate?

I think scientists can harvest stem cells from umbilical cords. Can't confirm that, though.

I fairly certain they are very rich in stem cells. Something to look into definitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Cord_blood_stem_cells

whatever,t hat's not practical in, what, 90% of the cases?

Well, the essential problem with getting stem cells from umbilical cords and placentas are that the stem cells they have are different than the kind you can get from embryos. Embryo stem cells can turn into any kind of human cell, but if I remember correctly the umbilical cord type has a more limited range of transformations. That's the rough idea, at least.

[minionofmidas]

Producing an embryo (okay, a heap of human plasma) with the inteintion of killing it is a lot worse than killing one you've produced accidentally.
And, unlike abortions, stem cell research is not going to happen anyways.
I'm 100% opposed to this stuff.

[afleitch]

I'm 100 percent in support of stem-cell research and am glad that the UK and Europe is taking a lead on this issue.

[JohnFKennedy]

Problem with stem cell research from umbilical cords is that it has nowhere near as a great a level of potential as stem cells from embryos.

Embryonic stem cells are supposed to be the most versatile, though in recent years they have discovered hematopoietic stem cells which have almost if not the same potential (you will have to check up on this, was about six months that I did a load of research on stem cells).

[minionofmidas]

Producing an embryo (okay, a heap of human plasma) with the inteintion of killing it is a lot worse than killing one you've produced accidentally.

^^^^^

Reminds me vaguely of the machines that grew/harvested humans exclusively for energy in The Matrix.

Yeah, me too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously they should use whatever works best, and tell the Reagan hating Republicans to go screw themselves.

[Alcon]

Obviously they should use whatever works best, and tell the Reagan hating Republicans to go screw themselves.

I hope you are not arguing that they hate Reagan just because they are opposed to something that could have, in theory, saved his life or something? That's ridiculous.

[The Dowager Mod]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously they should use whatever works best, and tell the Reagan hating Republicans to go screw themselves.

I hope you are not arguing that they hate Reagan just because they are opposed to something that could have, in theory, saved his life or something? That's ridiculous.

Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan Jr. are very pro-stem cell research.

[Alcon]

Obviously they should use whatever works best, and tell the Reagan hating Republicans to go screw themselves.

I hope you are not arguing that they hate Reagan just because they are opposed to something that could have, in theory, saved his life or something? That's ridiculous.

Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan Jr. are very pro-stem cell research.

And everyone who disagrees with them hates Ronald Reagan? That's ridiculous. It's a political opinion, not hatred.

[A18]

Reagan was probably the most pro-life president we've had.

[Frodo]

Reagan was probably the most pro-life president we've had.

You do realize he legalized abortion (at least I think he did) when he was governor of California, don't you? 

[The Duke]

I'm greatly bothered at the politicization of science.  I favor both umbilical cord stem cell and embryonic stem cell research.  My only prohibition would be on the cloning of cells to get the stem cells to experiment on.

I'm bothered by how those who favor embryonic stem cell research want to belittle umbilical cord research.  Need i be the 1,000th person to point out that umbilical cord research as already saved lives, while embryonic research's potential is purely speculative?  And I am equally bothered at how those who oppose embryonic research and want to substitute umbilical cord research for it overstate their claims on how effective their preferred treatment is, as if all the things that could be done with embryonic cells could be just as easily done with umbilical cells.

Too much politics, not enough ethics and science.  Saw Robert George on C-SPAN, a very impressive man, and a member of The President's Council on Bioethics.  One would do well to look him up, though we don't always agree.  Its nice to find a bit of seriousness now and then.

[Beet]

I'm greatly bothered at the politicization of science.  I favor both umbilical cord stem cell and embryonic stem cell research.  My only prohibition would be on the cloning of cells to get the stem cells to experiment on.

I'm bothered by how those who favor embryonic stem cell research want to belittle umbilical cord research.  Need i be the 1,000th person to point out that umbilical cord research as already saved lives, while embryonic research's potential is purely speculative?  And I am equally bothered at how those who oppose embryonic research and want to substitute umbilical cord research for it overstate their claims on how effective their preferred treatment is, as if all the things that could be done with embryonic cells could be just as easily done with umbilical cells.

Too much politics, not enough ethics and science.  Saw Robert George on C-SPAN, a very impressive man, and a member of The President's Council on Bioethics.  One would do well to look him up, though we don't always agree.  Its nice to find a bit of seriousness now and then.

Same here. Its understandable but unfortunate.

[A18]

Reagan was probably the most pro-life president we've had.

You do realize he legalized abortion (at least I think he did) when he was governor of California, don't you? 

This was prior to Roe. The sponsor of the bill said he'd make any change necessary in order to get him to sign it. He said it would have acknowledge that abortion was the taking of a human life, and that it could only be justified in our Judeo-Christian tradition as self-defense: in other words, exception for life and rape.

That's what he signed.

[angus]

this could finally take one hot-button issue off the table:

I disagree.  I think it's a non-moral issue only among academics and government researchers.  With scientific detachment, and sheer academic interest, you can discuss stem cell research.  This particular scientist may fancy himself diplomatic and politically wise, but when he tries to get funding, he immediately puts on his moralist's hat and talks about applications.  Watching Michael J. Fox discuss autism and the benefits of stem cell research to that cause results in a moral reaction among many, who will immediately support federal funding.  In fact, it is very much moralism that causes people to support most federal funding of medicine.  I understand that one's person's morality may not be the same as another's, and there is certainly a subset of the population for whom moralism actually pits them against federal funding of stem cell research, but it must be borne in mind that there is another huge subset (probably the larger of the two), for whom, if explained well, the prospect of federal funding any medical research elicits a moral reaction in favor of the research.  What I'm saying is that the "detached scientist" is the exception, not the rule.  And most folks will have some strong moral feeling about this issue that overrides the usual economic concerns, whether or not the word embryo or fetus even arises in the discussion.

[opebo]

this could finally take one hot-button issue off the table:

I disagree.  I think it's a non-moral issue only among academics and government researchers.  With scientific detachment, and sheer academic interest, you can discuss stem cell research.  This particular scientist may fancy himself diplomatic and politically wise, but when he tries to get funding, he immediately puts on his moralist's hat and talks about applications.  Watching Michael J. Fox discuss autism and the benefits of stem cell research to that cause results in a moral reaction among many, who will immediately support federal funding.  In fact, it is very much moralism that causes people to support most federal funding of medicine.  I understand that one's person's morality may not be the same as another's, and there is certainly a subset of the population for whom moralism actually pits them against federal funding of stem cell research, but it must be borne in mind that there is another huge subset (probably the larger of the two), for whom, if explained well, the prospect of federal funding any medical research elicits a moral reaction in favor of the research.  What I'm saying is that the "detached scientist" is the exception, not the rule.  And most folks will have some strong moral feeling about this issue that overrides the usual economic concerns, whether or not the word embryo or fetus even arises in the discussion.

Don't you think the desire to have cures for their various ailments is the reason people advocate government spending on health research?  Sounds pretty practical and self-interested to me, not 'moralism' at all.