Take That Opponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Research!

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Adam_PoE

Bardock42
Sweet, certainly a nice victory for stem cell research...

NineCoronas
Awesome! That's spectacular! That's the right use of science. smile

Quiero Mota
thumb up Orale!

Imperial_Samura
A valuable break through, one can't help but wonder how much more might have been discovered by this point if peoples irrational views hadn't reduced the pace of research to a crawl.

After all, in places like South Korea where Stem cell research has been far more accepted similar results were revealed some time ago.

Capt_Fantastic
"An important first step"

As has been pointed out, it's a first step in American media. It by no means represents the first step in the research of such science. America can either sit by quietly, thumping it's bible, or it can step up and be the first world country it pretends to be.

Post all the photoshoped images of Bush shooting the middle finger you want, but the rest of teh world is laughing while those people are getting their rocks off over something that ammounts to little more than a birthday e-card.

It REALLY IS the VERY LEAST we can do.

Mindship
You fools! Those rats were Born-Agains! That's what did it.

botankus
Congrats to whichever political party is supposed to support that theory.

T.M
Where did they find paralyzed rats...

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by T.M
Where did they find paralyzed rats... Probably surgical ablation...

PVS
ITS MURDER!!!1111

Bardock42
Originally posted by botankus
Congrats to whichever political party is supposed to support that theory.

What about congrats to humanity?

LethalFemme
Originally posted by Adam_PoE


I love the fact that the people who argue against the use of stem cells are a lot of the people who support the use of science to make nuclear weapons. It proves people are stupid and we need new people in power.

Morgoths_Wrath
Originally posted by T.M
Where did they find paralyzed rats...


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Paralyzed rats partially regained the use of a previously immobile hind leg in a study in which scientists injected the rodents with stem cells from mouse embryos, according to researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The scientists said they combined the transplanted stem cells with a "cocktail" of chemicals to help the paralyzed rats regenerate some of their nerve cells. This allowed a message from the brain to travel to the spinal cord and then to the legs of the paralyzed rats.

Results of the study were published this week in the journal Annals of Neurology.

Before the research began, the rats were given a virus that caused a neurodegenerative disease, paralyzing them.

In the study, 11 of the 15 rats made a partial, but significant, recovery from paralysis, researchers said. The rats recovered enough muscle strength to bear weight and walk on the previously paralyzed hind leg. (Watch as paralyzed rats move -- 1:59)

Although heartened by the findings, the scientists warned that it will be years before such experiments can be tried in humans. The experiment must be reproduced in larger animals first to make sure the nerve connections from the spinal cord to muscles can be made at longer distances. Researchers said the next step is to try the rat experiment in pigs.

Researchers said the new approach could eventually be used to repair nerve damage from degenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis and Lou Gehrig's disease, or from spinal cord injuries.

"This is proof of the principle that we can recapture what happens in early stages of motor neuron development and use that to repair damaged nervous systems," said Dr. Douglas Kerr, the neurologist who led the Hopkins team.

"With small adjustments keyed to differences in nervous system targets, the approach may also apply to patients with Parkinson's or Huntington's disease," Kerr said.

Scientists outside the university agreed that the findings were a big step forward in embryonic stem cell research.

"It's a remarkable advance that can help us understand how stem cells can begin to fulfill their great promise," said Elias A. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health. "Demonstrating restoration of function is an important step forward, though we still have a great distance to go."

In a similar rat study seven years ago, Dr. John McDonald, then with the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, got the neurons to survive in the spinal cord and restore some function, but they did not reconnect the nerve to the muscle.

Embryonic stem cells are blank cells that can be turned into basically any type of tissue, but the research is controversial because it involves destroying human embryos to get the cells





"Before the research began, the rats were given a virus that caused a neurodegenerative disease, paralyzing them."


PETA and other animal rights activists are not going to be happy no

T.M
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
"Before the research began, the rats were given a virus that caused a neurodegenerative disease, paralyzing them."


PETA and other animal rights activists are not going to be happy no

Ohh no they are not.

The Omega
Well... Stem-cell research touches on the borders of ethics. Sometimes it takes a little time for people to get used to new ethics... New ideas.

is it Jehovas Withnesses who refuse to take blood-fusions? And it wasn't until 1992 that the Catholic Church recalled its ban on Galileo Galilei from the 17th century, thus accepting that the Earth revolves around the Sun...

So sometimes it takes a little... time...

Mindship
Originally posted by The Omega
... wasn't until 1992 that the Catholic Church recalled its ban on Galileo Galilei from the 17th century, thus accepting that the Earth revolves around the Sun...
So sometimes it takes a little... time...
laughing out loud oh man, you got that right.

Captain REX
Only a little.

Well, this is great news, I should think.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
"Before the research began, the rats were given a virus that caused a neurodegenerative disease, paralyzing them."


PETA and other animal rights activists are not going to be happy no

Well better the rats be contributing something to science then getting caught in traps or poisoned. PETA needs to be more practical.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well better the rats be contributing something to science then getting caught in traps or poisoned. PETA needs to be more practical.

I don't know about that. Baby Jesus has a plan, even for rodents.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I don't know about that. Baby Jesus has a plan, even for rodents.

Quite possibly, though if he cared about humanity at all one would hope that the plan had to do with them helping solve all sorts of diseases and malady his daddy saw fit to plague us with.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Quite possibly, though if he cared about humanity at all one would hope that the plan had to do with them helping solve all sorts of diseases and malady his daddy saw fit to plague us with.

Cheers to you for taking me at face value.

And while he's planning our future, why not toss in another flood or a few plagues to free his "chosen people".

Darth Jello
My only concern is that if stem cells are irradiated or combined with a retrovirus like HPV and the injected, they could potentially be used as a biological weapon to give people cancer.

The Omega
Darth> The way the world is today there is ALWAYS the risk that new research will be taken by governments/military and twisted into weapons.
It is unfornatunte... Maybe one day things will be different.

Lord Urizen
I'm all for Stem Cell Research...

If women are going to have Abortions and get rid of thier foetuses, I think it'd be awesome if they'd give thier foetuses to scientific research instead of just dumping them.

Let's atleast MAKE USE of something rather than waste it !

Wondorful things can come from this scientific progression !

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If women are going to have Abortions and get rid of thier foetuses, I think it'd be awesome if they'd give thier foetuses to scientific research instead of just dumping them.

Fetus's are not use in stem cell research-embryos are.


I find it is sick that scientists could so cruelly give a rat a disease to paralyze them, then experiment with a few cells in the hope they would walk again. What would happen if their experiement failed? 'Never mind, it's just a rat, lets kill it'. How dare these people breed poor, defenceless animals just so they can make them sick?

I am against embryonic stem cell research. While I think it wonderful that stem cells could cure all manner of disease and illness, I do not believe human embryos are the right way to go. Especially when these scientists are not happy with the embryos they already have, donated, or left over from IVF to experiment on, they are demanding that they be permitted to clone human embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them.

If we were to cure Parkinson's disease with human stem cells, how many embryos would be destroyed to cure one persons illness? Scientists will never have enough embryos from donations or IVF leftovers, so they will have to be able to clone, which is something our Government will never allow. (Thank heavens)

An embryo may not be a life, but it is worth something, because it the potential to become something wonderful. Do we really have the right t take that chance away, all for a science experiment? confused

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Fetus's are not use in stem cell research-embryos are.


I find it is sick that scientists could so cruelly give a rat a disease to paralyze them, then experiment with a few cells in the hope they would walk again. What would happen if their experiement failed? 'Never mind, it's just a rat, lets kill it'. How dare these people breed poor, defenceless animals just so they can make them sick?

I am against embryonic stem cell research. While I think it wonderful that stem cells could cure all manner of disease and illness, I do not believe human embryos are the right way to go. Especially when these scientists are not happy with the embryos they already have, donated, or left over from IVF to experiment on, they are demanding that they be permitted to clone human embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them.

If we were to cure Parkinson's disease with human stem cells, how many embryos would be destroyed to cure one persons illness? Scientists will never have enough embryos from donations or IVF leftovers, so they will have to be able to clone, which is something our Government will never allow. (Thank heavens)

An embryo may not be a life, but it is worth something, because it the potential to become something wonderful. Do we really have the right t take that chance away, all for a science experiment? confused

Really? I think it's 'sick' when the advancement of modern medicine is hindered by Luddites, religious fanatics and people who care more about animals than people. How dare you presumably use the fruits of medical research while deriding the efforts of the researchers.

IIRC embryonic stem cells are harvested at the blastocyst stage - a mass of cells with no consciousness, no personality, no intelligence. A cloned embryo will never develop beyond such early stages. Parkinson's is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that results in debilitating symptoms. Millions worldwide suffer from the illness and millions more have to watch their loved ones slowly lose there mental and motor skills. Similarly Huntington's, Alzheimer's, Amyotropic Lateral Sclerosis, and a number of other illnesses. If you knew anyone with any of these illnesses maybe you'd have a little sympathy for that which is already something rather than that which has the potential to be something.

Alliance
Originally posted by autumn dreams
I find it is sick that scientists could so cruelly give a rat a disease to paralyze them, then experiment with a few cells in the hope they would walk again. What would happen if their experiement failed? 'Never mind, it's just a rat, lets kill it'. How dare these people breed poor, defenceless animals just so they can make them sick?
How dare you undermine their contributions to science. Modern medicine would not exist without animal research. Animals bread for research are treated exceedingly humanely. Things have to be tested. Tests on humans would be more immoral because if drugs/etc went wrong, a human life would be lost. No scientiest is unremorseful about taking an animals life, but they and I believe that greater good comes out of it.

Originally posted by autumn dreams
I am against embryonic stem cell research. While I think it wonderful that stem cells could cure all manner of disease and illness, I do not believe human embryos are the right way to go. Especially when these scientists are not happy with the embryos they already have, donated, or left over from IVF to experiment on, they are demanding that they be permitted to clone human embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them. Not surprising. Aparently you don't know anyone who's paralyzed, or has parkinsons or alzhimers. You are apparently not familiar with the any sort of scientific protocol. Every embryo only has so many stem cells. To do a real experiment...you need to repeat it over and over again...hence why we want to clone the cells of leftover embryos. This allows us to do science and prevents us from needing bajillions of embryos.
Originally posted by autumn dreams
If we were to cure Parkinson's disease with human stem cells, how many embryos would be destroyed to cure one persons illness? Scientists will never have enough embryos from donations or IVF leftovers, so they will have to be able to clone, which is something our Government will never allow. (Thank heavens).
Relatively not than many...assuming we can clone the ones we have. And besides...more than ONE effing person is paralyzed/has parkinsons/alzheimers. Apparently you think that only one person is being cured.

Apparently you (like our administration) doesn't know what cloning is. Ther are two types of cloning. Reproductive cloning is menat to make idenical copies of viable human beings and bringing them to term. Most nations and most scientiest are against this for ethical reasons.

The other type of cloning is theraputic cloning, which simply put is replicateing individual cells (in this case stem cells). This is allowed in most places in the world. The US is one of a few countries in the world that does not allow theraputic cloning of human cells. It will be allowed....if not soon then our medical industry will be exported.

Originally posted by autumn dreams
An embryo may not be a life, but it is worth something, because it the potential to become something wonderful. Do we really have the right t take that chance away, all for a science experiment? confused
YOu say scinece experiment like its something a third grader is doing. THese embryos that scientist want to use are just flushed down toilets (literally) anyway when they get to old to be used in the fertility clinics any more. Of course they are woth something...but you dont sweat evertime you kill billions of bacteria by using antibacterial soap. THese embryos are hardly more advanced than that. The point is that we can save millions of people lives and allow them to die with dignity...to walk and remember the faces of their loved ones. THAT is worht something...especially to people wh oare actually familiar with the science, the ethics, and the ailments...which you clearly are not.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by autumn dreams
I find it is sick that scientists could so cruelly give a rat a disease to paralyze them, then experiment with a few cells in the hope they would walk again. What would happen if their experiement failed?

What would happen? They're RATS! Who gives a shit? It's all for the children, anyway!

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Fetus's are not use in stem cell research-embryos are.

Seems like a very minor distinction. And stem cell research doesn't just use embryos. In fact in face of the unreasonable opposition researchers have found other viable sources - thus it is foolish for it to be stopped due to the embryo argument if stem cells can also be obtained from other sources such as umbilical blood.



I am concerned about animal welfare certainly, but, while some may scoff, animals in laboratory experiments such as this are treated humanly, and rarely suffer pain, and sadly sometimes sacrifices have to be made. Without the aid of test subjects humans would still be dying from everything from smallpox to the bubonic plague. The contribution from a small number of rats - which would be a pest and subject to cruel extermination in the normal world are here contributing to something that could one day save countless lives and end undocumented amounts of pain.



My first point covers this. While it is admitted that the best and most viable stem cells are embryonic, they can be obtained from other sources.



The whole purpose of research with potential benefits is to one: access and deliver whether it is actually a cure and the viability of the cure; two: to find a way that the cure can be produced in a sustainable manner. I do not believe that when results prove the extreme value of stem cells to medicine that it will lead to mass embryonic cloning.



A scientific experiment with enormous potential for the health and well being of humanity. And once again - more then one source of stem cells.

autumn dreams
Also, I DO know plently of people with illnesses that could be cured by stem cell research. My pop died of lung cancer and my uncle has a severe lung disease, which could probably be helped one day by these stem cells. You think I don't know that people suffer everyday from illness? I am very aware of that fact. Having said that, just because I may feel for those suffering, doesn't mean I have to support something which I believe to be immoral. You seem to be discusted that I disagree with this research-well, it is my right to disagree, and it is your right to support this research.

Animals have feelings too, or do you beat your pets and think they don't feel pain? Humans are important, but so are animals. To kill an animal is barbaric, to kill a human is also barbaric. I am not saying killing an animal is worse than killing a human, so don't even go there.

We don't know that animals in science labs are treated with care-we wouldn't even be able to step foot inside a lab to see, so how can we know? We are told by these 'scientists' that the animals are treated with dignity, but can we be sure? Or does that not matter to you, as long a humans MIGHT, and I say MIGHT because has embryonic stem cell research made someone walk again? Has it cured Parkinsons? How long will it take, how many embryos will it take to make ONE persons life that little bit easier? One? Ten? Ten thousand? We don't know, do we?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Also, I DO know plently of people with illnesses that could be cured by stem cell research. My pop died of lung cancer and my uncle has a severe lung disease, which could probably be helped one day by these stem cells. You think I don't know that people suffer everyday from illness? I am very aware of that fact. Having said that, just because I may feel for those suffering, doesn't mean I have to support something which I believe to be immoral. You seem to be discusted that I disagree with this research-well, it is my right to disagree, and it is your right to support this research.

Animals have feelings too, or do you beat your pets and think they don't feel pain? Humans are important, but so are animals. To kill an animal is barbaric, to kill a human is also barbaric. I am not saying killing an animal is worse than killing a human, so don't even go there.

We don't know that animals in science labs are treated with care-we wouldn't even be able to step foot inside a lab to see, so how can we know? We are told by these 'scientists' that the animals are treated with dignity, but can we be sure? Or does that not matter to you, as long a humans MIGHT, and I say MIGHT because has embryonic stem cell research made someone walk again? Has it cured Parkinsons? How long will it take, how many embryos will it take to make ONE persons life that little bit easier? One? Ten? Ten thousand? We don't know, do we? I am a scientist.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Also, I DO know plently of people with illnesses that could be cured by stem cell research. My pop died of lung cancer and my uncle has a severe lung disease, which could probably be helped one day by these stem cells. You think I don't know that people suffer everyday from illness? I am very aware of that fact. Having said that, just because I may feel for those suffering, doesn't mean I have to support something which I believe to be immoral. You seem to be discusted that I disagree with this research-well, it is my right to disagree, and it is your right to support this research.

Immoral how? To save life, to extend life by using embryos that are never going to be life? To humanly test on animals in order to minimise the risk to humans, and also to limit the number of animals that will have to be used? And besides, there are other sources for stem cells - is it still immoral to use stem cells from umbilical blood?



Do you eat meat? Do you put out traps or poison to kill cockroaches and rats that damage property and can bring illness? It all goes on. Compared to most of it laboratory testing is paradise - and it has far, far more to offer.



Most western nations have stringent laws and rules in place that regulate the scientific industry - including animal test subjects. They are constantly monitored in how they treat them, and laboratories that act incorrectly can, and are, shut down or prevented from continuing research. There is a research park near my university, and some animal testing goes on there, and I know for a fact that the animals are treated humanly - far more humanely then a pet shop, or in the wild. IN fact many researchers become attached to the animals, great and small. They aren't heartless, but they do realise that this is necessary research for the good of humanity.



It doesn't work like that. They don't inject a dozen embryos into some guy or rat and watch and see if he works. A drop of blood, a near microscopic bit of skin - numerous cells. Stem cells aren't that different, it is not about a mountain of embryos - it doesn't work that way.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I am a scientist.

And because of that, you support this research.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by autumn dreams
And because of that, you support this research.

I think, based upon the researchers I know, that a scientist won't simply support research because it is research, but rather because it deserves to be supported.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Immoral how? To save life, to extend life by using embryos that are never going to be life?

But, if given the chance, they COULD become a life. That is what I dislike about it-the fact that they have the potential to become something wonderful. I consider an embryo to be human, to be worthy of respect. I have thought a lot of about stem cell research, and what it could do, but I cannot agree with using human embryos for it.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And besides, there are other sources for stem cells - is it still immoral to use stem cells from umbilical blood?

This is different. Cord cells are not embryos. They will never become life because they are not life. I strongly support the use of cord blood cells, AND adult stem cells. I believe we should be using adult stem cells instead of embryonic cells BEFORE we start using embryos. And if we allow embryos to be cloned, what next? Scientists will not want to stop, they will want to clone more and more, and that isn't what we should be doing. Yes, we should be doing all we can to relieve a persons suffering, but are using human embryos really the way to go about that, especially as many people, religious and no, simply don't agree with the research?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
And because of that, you support this research. Wow... no expression. Because of that I know that animals used in research are treated humanely. I have sacrificed animals for research. Do I want to? No. Do I know it's necessary? Yes. Your assertions of scientists using animals as cruel inhuman monsters is blatantly wrong. Riddle me this: How many of Imperial Samura's questions did you answer 'Yes' to?

autumn dreams
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Wow... no expression. Because of that I know that animals used in research are treated humanely. I have sacrificed animals for research. Do I want to? No. Do I know it's necessary? Yes. Your assertions of scientists using animals as cruel inhuman monsters is blatantly wrong. Riddle me this: How many of Imperial Samura's questions did you answer 'Yes' to?

I believe I answered his question regarding cord blood.

It is wonderful that the institution you work in treats animals with respect. But what of other instituions? They may not be as humane as your lab.

Answer me this: If an animal can prove that using stem cells actually works, if someone were to go into a vet with their pet cat who has suffered a broken leg, do you think they would be able to have that animals cells cloned to enable to animal to walk again?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think, based upon the researchers I know, that a scientist won't simply support research because it is research, but rather because it deserves to be supported. A new avenue recently discovery is that the adult brain actually still produces stem cells in some regions like the hippocampus which is important in learning and memory, and a lot of work is involved in discovering ways to exploit this for therapeutic means. Embryonic stem cell research however are still an important field because these cells are pluripotent rather than just multipotent.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
I believe I answered his question regarding cord blood.

It is wonderful that the institution you work in treats animals with respect. But what of other instituions? They may not be as humane as your lab.

Answer me this: If an animal can prove that using stem cells actually works, if someone were to go into a vet with their pet cat who has suffered a broken leg, do you think they would be able to have that animals cells cloned to enable to animal to walk again? Wow... no expression. I meant his questions regarding meat, etc.

Any reputable University has an ethics body overseeing research. Researchers have to sign legally binding ethical agreements. External bodies that fund research also have stringent ethical procedures.

Why would a vet need stem cells for a broken leg. And no, stem cells wouldn't be a very viable option for cancer considering cancers are growths of cells, not abnormal cellular degeneration and death.

The embryos used for research have zero potential for "becoming something wonderful." If they aren't used they will be destroyed.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
What would happen? They're RATS! Who gives a shit? It's all for the children, anyway!

The fact that they are rats isn't the point. No one could ever get away with deliberatly giving a child a disease, so why should a scientist get away with inflicting illness on a rat?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
The fact that they are rats isn't the point. No one could ever get away with deliberatly giving a child a disease, so why should a scientist get away with inflicting illness on a rat? Rat = child. eer

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by autumn dreams
But, if given the chance, they COULD become a life. That is what I dislike about it-the fact that they have the potential to become something wonderful. I consider an embryo to be human, to be worthy of respect. I have thought a lot of about stem cell research, and what it could do, but I cannot agree with using human embryos for it.

But could and will are two very different things. However by way of this research they can also become life, if you like. They could potentially save lives. And comparing them it troublesome - you consider them human, thus you can't condone usage as that would kill them. But to block this avenue will potentially cost existing, actual human lives. However it must be remembered that embryos used for this research have no potential to become a human being, with or without stem cell research - not using them would lead to the destruction anyway. Surely it is better if they actually contribute to saving lives?




Well, religious people are often disagreeing with science, in all it's forms. I do not believe that such views, which are often based on baseless fears and ignorance should stant in the way of scientific progress.

But anyway, what you are saying is that you can accept stem cell research in certain conditions. As to cloning, that is an entirely different debate, but for the sake of things I will say support cloning research, along with research into transgenics and genetic modification. These needlessly controversial fields have a great deal to offer.



Exactly.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Rat = child. eer

Of course a rat is nothing like a child. I just don't like the idea of animals being harmed, no matter if they feel no pain, for medical research.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But could and will are two very different things. However by way of this research they can also become life, if you like. They could potentially save lives. And comparing them it troublesome - you consider them human, thus you can't condone usage as that would kill them. But to block this avenue will potentially cost existing, actual human lives. However it must be remembered that embryos used for this research have no potential to become a human being, with or without stem cell research - not using them would lead to the destruction anyway. Surely it is better if they actually contribute to saving lives?

If the embryos in question are dead, they have no chance of becoming anything. Research may be okay in this instance, but I just don't like the idea of an embryo being...vilated, Isuppose. I can't think of another word for it. I hope we find cures for all these illnesses, I really do, but surely there is a better way to go about that?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But anyway, what you are saying is that you can accept stem cell research in certain conditions.

Yes, this would be true.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Of course a rat is nothing like a child. I just don't like the idea of animals being harmed, no matter if they feel no pain, for medical research. You'd prefer the idea of people suffering from Alzheimer's, Huntington's, Parkinson's, ALS, stroke, depression, epilepsy....?

Alliance
Originally posted by autumn dreams
We don't know that animals in science labs are treated with care-we wouldn't even be able to step foot inside a lab to see, so how can we know? We are told by these 'scientists' that the animals are treated with dignity, but can we be sure? Or does that not matter to you, as long a humans MIGHT, and I say MIGHT because has embryonic stem cell research made someone walk again? Has it cured Parkinsons? How long will it take, how many embryos will it take to make ONE persons life that little bit easier? One? Ten? Ten thousand? We don't know, do we? First off...I'm a molecular biologist and I work with mice and rats in the lab on a weekly basis. They are treated extreemely humanely. Jeust because you don't know something doesn't mean its automatically wrong. They almost get better anesthesia than you get.
Unless you read...even the media has picked up on a story that a scientist has cured paralysis with stem cells. Scientists don't do something because they think its fun, they do an experiment because it will show results. You have no idea about how much thought goes into the experiemetns before hand. Stem cells are so powerfull, I almost garuntee that something (even if its not on the scale of somehting like a cure for parkinsons etc) will come out of it. Imo, a rats life is worth sacrificing to ssave a human's life. These arent [email protected] diseases were dealing with. These things are terminal and they would help millions. So wake up and realize that we are actually trying to help people...as opposed to you sitting on your backward arse. You didnt cry when we got rid of PKU, or polio, or smallpox. ANimals were involved in that as well.

Alliance
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Of course a rat is nothing like a child. I just don't like the idea of animals being harmed, no matter if they feel no pain, for medical research.
Perhaps you should be used then? Would you volunteer your life to help save millions of others?

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps you should be used then? Would you volunteer your life to help save millions of others?

Would advocates of stem cell research sacrifice their own lives to save others? Of course not-animals can be disposed of much more easier.

I am NOT against trying to find a cure for these illnesses, please do not think that. I just do not like the idea of human embryos being used-that is all. Is that such a bad thing?

docb77
My opinions on related topics:

Pro-stem cell research
pro animal testing
anti-abortion

Just to raise a question, the article didn't really state whether they were embryonic or adult. I know that to a lot of people the embryonic stem cells seem to show more immediate promise, but I'm hoping for advances with the adult variety. If doctors could use your own stem cells to grow your replacement tissues there would be no immunorejection factor.

Well, whichever type they are, the real winners will be the people who get to use the treatment 10-15 years down the road.

crazylozer
Life lesson: save your umbilical cords!

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Would advocates of stem cell research sacrifice their own lives to save others? Of course not-animals can be disposed of much more easier.

Well, it is amazing how far some people will go to help the suffering. I wouldn't be surprised if there were people out there who would sacrifice their lives to save the life of a loved one.

Of course that defeats the purpose - stem cell research is about saving lives, improving lives, not taking a life.

But anyway, it goes back to what I asked before - what about animals for food? Animals killed as pests or danger? Animals dying in deforestation for houses? What is you stance on all that? Arguably these kinds of animal death are usually far less pleasant or humane then the lives of animals in animal research, and rarely contribute as much.

Nazgulinthedark
woot I'm so happy that years of killing living human embryos payed off in a rat being able to walk again!

Alliance
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Would advocates of stem cell research sacrifice their own lives to save others? Of course not-animals can be disposed of much more easier.

I am NOT against trying to find a cure for these illnesses, please do not think that. I just do not like the idea of human embryos being used-that is all. Is that such a bad thing?

Do you get that the embryos that scientists want to use are left over from fertility clinics or are donated. If they are not used they are litterally washed down sinks. Instead of wasting them...why not let us take the 16 or 32 cells and use them for research.

The problem is that imo you have no credible reasons to back up your claim.

Alliance
Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
woot I'm so happy that years of killing living human embryos payed off in a rat being able to walk again!

I'm so glad that you are so narrowminded that you can't see the power this research has.

And I'm so glad that you are so ignorant of science to believe human stem cells were even used in this experiment. Stem cells from mice (im assuming M. musculus) were used.

Nazgulinthedark
Originally posted by Alliance
I'm so glad that you are so narrowminded that you can't see the power this research has.

And I'm so glad that you are so ignorant of science to believe human stem cells were even used in this experiment. Stem cells from mice (im assuming M. musculus) were used.


Originally posted by Alliance
are left over from fertility clinics
Yes, because they have fertility clinics for mice.

Alliance
Look. They wer two different posts for areason...the one to autumn has to do with general stem cell research.

on to you. I don't know if they have fertility clinics for mice. but in the Kerr study mice stem cells were used. Read the study or any pop news article on it.

Nazgulinthedark
Originally posted by Alliance
Look. They wer two different posts for areason...the one to autumn has to do with general stem cell research.

on to you. I don't know if they have fertility clinics for mice. but in the Kerr study mice stem cells were used. Read the study or any pop news article on it.

Perhaps in that study. But I know that human embryos are used for research and that's what I wanted to get at. Not so much that they used it for this case in particular.

Alliance
hmmm...kind of difficult to tell since you directly linked the two in Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
woot I'm so happy that years of killing living human embryos payed off in a rat being able to walk again!

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
Yes, because they have fertility clinics for mice.

Dear me, the lack of scientific understanding in the world! Mice have stem cells just like people and cows and whatever. It is possible to establish mice embryos in scientific conditions, outside of a body, just like human and cows and whatever. And they can get stem cells from any of them. And they could likely get stem cells at some point from an adult mouse, just like from an adult human or adult cow or whatever.

And as to your sarcasm about making a paralysed rat walk - this is science. By doing this it is likely that one day they will be able to make a paralysed humans walk.



Yes they have been used before. Embryos with no other practical use. What would you have done with them? Keep them in deep freeze for the rest of eternity? Or simply dispose of them? Because those two acts would be infinitely better and more respectful then, oh, I don't know, discovering the cure for terrible diseases and saving lives.

Alliance
ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...

laughing

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...ECHO...

laughing

Great minds think alike!

Alliance
OH! confused

Or you just liked what I said big grin

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by autumn dreams
The fact that they are rats isn't the point. No one could ever get away with deliberatly giving a child a disease, so why should a scientist get away with inflicting illness on a rat?

ummm?...BECAUSE IT'S A RAT!

Arcana
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
ummm?...BECAUSE IT'S A RAT!
Lol... yea seriously... who gives a flying shit about rats?

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
ummm?...BECAUSE IT'S A RAT!

Would you also say 'It's only a kitten, or it's only a puppy'? A rat is an animal. Rats feel pain. Rats were not put here for people to experiement with.

Arcana
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Would you also say 'It's only a kitten, or it's only a puppy'? A rat is an animal. Rats feel pain. Rats were not put here for people to experiement with.
Oh and the fact that they can cause serious problems never occurred to you?

Ever heard of the "Black Death"? It was deadly disease spread in the 14th century... by guess what? Rats. Of course back then sanitation was next to nothing and medicine was a relative joke. The point is that they are filthy disgusting creatures. I would also think that the elimination of deadly sicknesses by experimentation on mere rats is quite worth it.

And again... who cares about what Rats feel?

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Darth Macabre
Originally posted by Arcana
Oh and the fact that they can cause serious problems never occurred to you?

Ever heard of the "Black Death"? It was deadly disease spread in the 14th century... by guess what? Rats. Of course back then sanitation was next to nothing and medicine was a relative joke. The point is that they are filthy disgusting creatures. I would also think that the elimination of deadly sicknesses by experimentation on mere rats is quite worth it.

And again... who cares about what Rats feel?

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

It was the fleas on the rats that spread it....Wasn't it?

Originally posted by autumn dreams
Would you also say 'It's only a kitten, or it's only a puppy'? A rat is an animal. Rats feel pain. Rats were not put here for people to experiement with.


And if it would save hundreds of thousands of people, then yes. Yes I would.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
It was the fleas on the rats that spread it....Wasn't it?

I was about to point that out. It was not rats at all, it was fleas, so blame them.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
And if it would save hundreds of thousands of people, then yes. Yes I would.

If killing humans could save millions of human lives, would be okay about that? Of course not, because humans are so precious, and animals are just worthless creature designed purely to be treated like garbage.

Darth Macabre
Originally posted by autumn dreams
If killing humans could save millions of human lives, would be okay about that? Of course not, because humans are so precious, and animals are just worthless creature designed purely to be treated like garbage.

Yes, I would be okay...If those people that died would save millions more then it's a sacrifice that must be paid... You can't gain anything with out sacrificing.

If my death would save countless of people, then by all means kill me now.

Call me whatever you want...I just happen to always look at the greater spectrum.

docb77
I don't know how it is that people think that its the same to experiment on animals as people. No matter what point of view you take that just can't be the case. In Judeo-Christian thought men were made stewards over the animals. That means that they are here for our use, and we must take care of them when we aren't using them. From a Darwinian perspective homo sapiens are the most evolved form of life on earth and ensuring our survival is paramount to this paradigm. In the darwinian world other creatures have to die to keep the fittest species alive.

The only people who have a case of arguing against animal experimentation are the hindus, since they think the animals could have once been people. But even then you must recognize that by saving lives those animals might have a better chance of their next life being a step up in the karmic scene.

So Autumn dreams, Why do you think that humans and animals are equal? I believe that all men are created equal, not that all members of the kingdom animalia are created equal.

Arcana
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
It was the fleas on the rats that spread it....Wasn't it?

Still it was the rats who originally caused the problem since they carried the fleas.

Alliance
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Would you also say 'It's only a kitten, or it's only a puppy'? A rat is an animal. Rats feel pain. Rats were not put here for people to experiement with.
Originally posted by autumn dreams
If killing humans could save millions of human lives, would be okay about that? Of course not, because humans are so precious, and animals are just worthless creature designed purely to be treated like garbage.

You're clearly delusional. Experiments are done on dogs and cats and even more intelligent animals like pigs.

Throught history humans have sacrificed their lives to help others. Medical researchers spend their lives and their time trying to help other. NO scientiest undervalues the contributions made by animals to medical research.

You were vaccinated as a child using vaccines that were developed on animals. You have not had terminal, crippling, and disfiguring diseases because of animals. Maybe you should respect what medecine and animlas have done for you...instead of simply wishing away thier sacrifices to let you have a healthy life.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Would you also say 'It's only a kitten, or it's only a puppy'? A rat is an animal. Rats feel pain. Rats were not put here for people to experiement with.

As was mentioned earlier, to save human lives yes. I'm not advocating the pointless, deliberate torture of an animal. I'm no fan of increasing the human population on this planet. There are already too many of us. However, to improve the quality of life for those that are here, I think that animal testing is a needed evil. I'm not saying rats or any other animal were "put" here for us to use as experiment fodder, but it's a happy coincidence they can be used in such a manner. But, I'm not sure animals were "put" here for us to eat. Are you a vegitarian.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
OH! confused

Or you just liked what I said big grin

Maybe. Though really it is just because I don't reply fast enough. I hit "quote" go of and do something else or type to much, and by the time I post "submit" others might have responded already. The down side of multi-tasking.

Of course it is ok if I like what the other person has said, and I like what you said, and agree entirely.



Yes, it has already been said. Such animals are experimented on, and treated just as humanly as rats. And do you know there are places where they are eaten?

I still see that as an important consideration - the animals are contributing, and often better cared for here, then they are in things like the food industry, or the pest extermination industry - it is erroneous to act like said animals are treated cruelly here and like princes in the rest of the world.

So I say yes, it is justified, if it is done humanely (which it is) - ultimately the food chain as it were has put us on top, and by way of research these animals can contribute enormously to medical science and potentially one day save and improve countless lives, and the findings may even help animal species themselves one day when the full potential is realised.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by docb77
So Autumn dreams, Why do you think that humans and animals are equal?

I don't think they are equal, as such. I think that animals deserve more respect, is all. We don't keep humans in cages to test our drugs on, so why do this to an animal? If we did it to humans we'd be blasted because 'it's cruel and sick'. But with an animal, no one seems to care. People think 'So what? It's only a rat/rabbit/puppy/kitten'. Animals deserve more respect than this.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Alliance
You were vaccinated as a child using vaccines that were developed on animals. You have not had terminal, crippling, and disfiguring diseases because of animals.

Have you seen a bunny rabbit with chicken pox, or measles? No-so why test drugs on animals that will cure an illness the animal will never get? Why not test drugs meant for HUMANS on HUMANS?


What about cosmetics? Have you ever seen a puppy dog apply lipstick or lipbalm? Have you ever seen a rat use dishwashing detergent? These products are tested on animals-purfumes are put in the animals eyes, because a precious human might be so stupid as to spray it in their eyes and have a reaction. HUMANS use lipstick and HUMANS wash dishes, so test these cosmetics and household cleaners on HUMANS-don't inflict pain on an animal, especially when they won't even use a detergent.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
I don't think they are equal, as such. I think that animals deserve more respect, is all. We don't keep humans in cages to test our drugs on, so why do this to an animal?Because humans and animals are not equal, you said so yourself. Because animal models are an important part of confirming theory in practice, and determining safety for humans.Originally posted by autumn dreams
If we did it to humans we'd be blasted because 'it's cruel and sick'. But with an animal, no one seems to care. People think 'So what? It's only a rat/rabbit/puppy/kitten'. Animals deserve more respect than this. The animals are treated respectfully. You are generalising because you clearly know nothing of the scientific process. I used an animal today.

Do you eat meat?
Have you worn leather?
Do you eat eggs and are they free range?

Have you ever taken a medicinal drug?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Have you seen a bunny rabbit with chicken pox, or measles? No-so why test drugs on animals that will cure an illness the animal will never get? Why not test drugs meant for HUMANS on HUMANS? Idiocy. Are you volunteering?
Originally posted by autumn dreams
What about cosmetics? Have you ever seen a puppy dog apply lipstick or lipbalm? Have you ever seen a rat use dishwashing detergent? These products are tested on animals-purfumes are put in the animals eyes, because a precious human might be so stupid as to spray it in their eyes and have a reaction. HUMANS use lipstick and HUMANS wash dishes, so test these cosmetics and household cleaners on HUMANS-don't inflict pain on an animal, especially when they won't even use a detergent. What do commercial cosmetics have to do with medical research? Absolutely nothing, that's what.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Idiocy. Are you volunteering?

Are you? Umm...no, of course not! A human, experiemented on? Never!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What do commercial cosmetics have to do with medical research? Absolutely nothing, that's what.

I know cosmetics have nothing to do with medical research, but they are still tested on animals-I suppose you support this, too?

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Have you seen a bunny rabbit with chicken pox, or measles? No-so why test drugs on animals that will cure an illness the animal will never get? Why not test drugs meant for HUMANS on HUMANS?

In the most simple terms - to protect human life. You have a potential vaccine that seems to work in a test tube, but you aren't sure what will happen when you inject it into a body with all it's variable. Inject it into a human before the problems and risks are discovered and worked out, and you risk that life. Thus you test it on animals first - it protects human lives.

Usually once it seems safe after animal research it will enter into the "human" research phase, and due to the animal contribution by this point it should have been evolved to a safe level.

Of course, there is said to be human testing being carried out by unscrupulous labs - the controversy over the Big pharma companies in Africa. If true it just high lights the fact that going straight from theory to human testing is far to dangerous.



Now this I don't agree with. I do not support animal testing in the cosmetic research sector. However I believe there is a fundamental difference between the medical research sector and the cosmetic research sector.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Are you? Umm...no, of course not! A human, experiemented on? Never!

I know cosmetics have nothing to do with medical research, but they are still tested on animals-I suppose you support this, too? 1. So you like to make a big noise about how wrong animal testing is and that humans should be used instead, but wouldn't back it up by being the subject? Which humans should we use for the preliminary experiments to test proof of principal or safety of a therapeutic then? Elderly? Invalids? How about a particular ethnic group?

You do realise that in the drug discovery process once the drug is deemed safe and a therapeutic index has been determined then human clinical

2. They're two entirely different things, they aren't comparable - why would supporting one be indicative of support of the other. Medical research is for the pursuit of knowledge about disease in order to find ways of treating the disease - do you realise this? Have you ever used cosmetics?

Alliance
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Have you seen a bunny rabbit with chicken pox, or measles? No-so why test drugs on animals that will cure an illness the animal will never get? Why not test drugs meant for HUMANS on HUMANS?
Ok. Again you are clearly underinformed. I'm not sure about the speceficity of the diseases you are talking about, but many animals have diseases very similar to humans. Cures that are tested on certain animals because the can have or do have the specific condition. After the treatment is developed, there is a huge agricultural underside to pharmecutical companies that makes the small treatement for animals.

ex. Bacitracin, which I believe was tested on animals, Is availible in forms for both humans and animals to reduce infections. Animals often benefit as much as humans do.

Secondly. Animal testing is more than cosmetics. Animals are in many ways so similar to humans. If you got soap in your eye...are you in such terrible pain that you cant bear to live any more? How about if someone put lipstick on you?

The point is, sometimes drugs/treatmnents have unforseen consequences due to new chemical combinations etc. If a lipsitic will unknowingly burn your face off, you'd fell pretty bad no matter whose face you melted, but better a pigs than a humans. After animal testes are done, THEN human tests are conducted.

docb77
This thread sure got off topic, didn't it. I thought it was about stem cell research, not animal research.

autumn dreams
Sorry to bump this up and keep us all off topic, but this artical was printed in my local paper a few days ago, and I thought it was worth a look.


More than 2.7 million animals were used for scientific experiments in Victoria in a single year, new figures reveal.
Testing on animals rose dramatically in 2004, the most recent data shows.
Experiments included "burning or scalding" 66 sheep and "interference of the central nervous system" of 6500 animals including 15 cats, five pigs and nine rabbits.

Some 2.1 million chickens were used in a project to test a vaccine for Newcastle disease, which poses a significant risk to the poultry industry.

In 2004, almost 400,000 animals died or had to be put down after tests, including 18 koalas, 37 possums and gliders, 75 cats, 254 dogs and 33 horses.

Monkeys, guineapigs, birds and rabbits were also killed as part of scientific experiments.

Genetic engineering tests were also carried out on almost 40,000 animals.

Animals were injected with disease and infection, electrocuted and exposed to radiation and toxins.

RSPCA president Hugh Wirth described animal testing as "barbaric" and said the RSPCA opposed the use of live animals for scientific experiments.

"The only experiments we condone are those that are absolutely essential, and that there is no possibility of conducting the experiment without live animals, and that the experiment has been properly assessed and evaluated by an ethics committee," Dr Wirth said.

He said Victoria had the highest number of institutions that used animals for scientific testing.

In 2003, 488,808 animals were used for scientific experiments in Victoria.

Even without the 2.1 million chickens, the number of animals used in tests in 2004 blew out to 603,043.

More than 100 primates, including baboons, macaques and marmosets, were used in experiments in 2004. The average is 68.

There were 97 institutions which carried out animal tests in Victoria in 2004, including universities and hospitals.

The names of institutions that conduct animal testing have never been made public and can not be obtained under Freedom of Information.

A spokesman for the Department of Primary Industries, Jeremi Moule, said each year the department audited a third of such organisations, and it was a serious offence to conduct unapproved tests.

"Every project must be approved by each organisation's animal ethics committee, which is made up of a vet, researcher or teacher, an animal welfare representative and an independent person," Mr Moule said.

But Dr Wirth said since the law was passed in 1986 not one organisation has been prosecuted for animal cruelty.

Animal Liberation Victoria spokesman Paul Crossley said ALV did not support animal testing under any circumstances.

"I'm concerned there are major scientific flaws with using animals for tests for drugs that will be used on humans," Mr Crossley said.

"We would be interested to know who's conducting what."



http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19734661%255E2862,00.html

Why the need to electrocute or scald an animal?

docb77
Perhaps to find a way to treat PEOPLE who have been electrocuted or scalded. There are reasons for any experiment that's conducted. I've heard of these ethics comittees. I was in a class in college and we couldn't be taught proper lab procedure with animals because the ethics comittee was too slow. Didn't finish reviewing the proposed procedures before the semester ended. (It was the first year the class was offered).

Face it, Animal research is beneficial to human life. You can try to put animal life on par with human, but most people don't buy that. If it comes down to me or some animal, I choose me. (me and a member of my family, I'd probably sacrifice myself for them)

autumn dreams
Originally posted by docb77
Perhaps to find a way to treat PEOPLE who have been electrocuted or scalded.

We already have burns units at hospital to treat burns, and doctors can treat electric shock enough so we need not put an animal through something like that.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Luddite.

Alliance
Originally posted by autumn dreams
We already have burns units at hospital to treat burns, and doctors can treat electric shock enough so we need not put an animal through something like that.

Yes. If that were the case you'd still be using leeches to help you get rid of that fever.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by Alliance
Yes. If that were the case you'd still be using leeches to help you get rid of that fever.

What do people years ago have to treat illness? Did they have painkillers? Were they able to pop a pill like we do nowadays? Oh, I have a headache, I'll take a pill. Have a tummy ache? Take a pill. People years ago put up with pain. Now we have become so weak we must torture animals just to find a pill to take away our poor headaches?

Geez, what a bunch of wimps we are.

FeceMan
I'm a tad confused as to how that's a "take that!"

Originally posted by The Omega
Well... Stem-cell research touches on the borders of ethics. Sometimes it takes a little time for people to get used to new ethics... New ideas.

is it Jehovas Withnesses who refuse to take blood-fusions? And it wasn't until 1992 that the Catholic Church recalled its ban on Galileo Galilei from the 17th century, thus accepting that the Earth revolves around the Sun...

So sometimes it takes a little... time...

I thought it was just that they declared him innocent or cleared his charges.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm a tad confused as to how that's a "take that!"

I thought it was just that they declared him innocent or cleared his charges. No the Vatican only officially admitted he was right in 1992 iirc.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by autumn dreams
What do people years ago have to treat illness? Did they have painkillers? Were they able to pop a pill like we do nowadays? Oh, I have a headache, I'll take a pill. Have a tummy ache? Take a pill. People years ago put up with pain. Now we have become so weak we must torture animals just to find a pill to take away our poor headaches?

Geez, what a bunch of wimps we are. Puerile Luddite.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by autumn dreams
What do people years ago have to treat illness? Did they have painkillers? Were they able to pop a pill like we do nowadays? Oh, I have a headache, I'll take a pill. Have a tummy ache? Take a pill. People years ago put up with pain. Now we have become so weak we must torture animals just to find a pill to take away our poor headaches?

Geez, what a bunch of wimps we are.

Yep. Next time a see some old man shaking so bad he can't hold a cup of tea or some sad looking person paralysed from the neck down, or somebody suffering from a degenerative muscle disease that will kill them by the age of 25, I am going to go up to them, poke them and say "you weak willed wimps."

I mean, it's not like humanity is plagued by things worse then headaches, is it? It's not like stem cell research and animal research has the potential to save people from some of the cruelest, most debilitating illnesses. I mean gee, they should grin through the pain and just be happy knowing that while we could be working towards a cure we aren't. For the sake of the rats, which are treated better then wild rats anyway.



My sentiments exactly.

Alliance
Originally posted by autumn dreams
What do people years ago have to treat illness? Did they have painkillers? Were they able to pop a pill like we do nowadays? Oh, I have a headache, I'll take a pill. Have a tummy ache? Take a pill. People years ago put up with pain. Now we have become so weak we must torture animals just to find a pill to take away our poor headaches?

Geez, what a bunch of wimps we are.

You are not required to participate at all in medicine.

There are pleny of colonies where no scientific progress beyond metallurgy is used. yes

Soleran
Bump in regards to Missouri's Constitutional Amendment 2 Stem Cell inititive!

So would folks vote for or against this amendment?

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

FeceMan
Take THAT, Rembrandt scholars!

Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by autumn dreams
But, if given the chance, they COULD become a life. That is what I dislike about it-the fact that they have the potential to become something wonderful. I consider an embryo to be human, to be worthy of respect. I have thought a lot of about stem cell research, and what it could do, but I cannot agree with using human embryos for it.


No, no they won't. We don't have the technology to correctly clone a human. Cloned embryos would never get past the embryonic stage. In fact, it's be pretty cruel to the new 'lifeform' to try and force it into growing into a human. It'd probably be a stillborn mutant.

Victor Von Doom
I bet they're just pissed off that Robbie Williams won't rejoin.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I bet they're just pissed off that Robbie Williams won't rejoin.

That's very, very funny. I am laughing because it is so funny. See! Look at me laugh...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.