Originally posted by Regret
Yes, but that doesn't mean that his decisions are always improper, only that they are made due to idiotic and wrong reasoning
This one was clearly wrong. Honestly...Did you read the bill???...it was about as ethical as it comes. I dont see how research on ebryos that are just flushed down the toilet is any worse than just flushing them down the toilet.
Hopefully it turns out to be a disaster for the GOP.
Originally posted by Alliance
This one was clearly wrong. Honestly...Did you read the bill???...it was about as ethical as it comes. I dont see how research on ebryos that are just flushed down the toilet is any worse than just flushing them down the toilet.Hopefully it turns out to be a disaster for the GOP.
And if the research works out well, will there be another larger debate about the use of valid embryos? I think the issue is still the same as if they were valid.
No its not. There wer at least six very rational regulations on what type of embryos could be used. Onyl embryoes that are going to be destroyed anyway (past optimal time for implantation), no use of embryoes where any finnancial gain was given to the donator...very logical stuff. I think you misunderstand what scientists want. No sane scientist want to chop up every embryo they see. We want a enough access (access would have been great under the current bill), but not unlimited. We dont need it.
Originally posted by Alliance
No its not. There wer at least six very rational regulations on what type of embryos could be used. Onyl embryoes that are going to be destroyed anyway (past optimal time for implantation), no use of embryoes where any finnancial gain was given to the donator...very logical stuff. I think you misunderstand what scientists want. No sane scientist want to chop up every embryo they see. We want a enough access (access would have been great under the current bill), but not unlimited. We dont need it.
I don't misunderstand what scientists want. I view with high skepticism society at large's ability to control itself once the scientists are finished with their research.
If the research proves to be beneficial there will be a larger debate as to which embryos should and should not be used when a person's life is on the line.
Due to this, I think that more research should be done with the adult stem cells before we should allow more research into embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell research is still a wide area research could proceed and verify some possibilities prior to researching through the embryonic stem cell. I view embryonic stem cell research as unnecessary until adult stem cell research is further developed.
Originally posted by Regret
Due to this, I think that more research should be done with the adult stem cells before we should allow more research into embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell research is still a wide area research could proceed and verify some possibilities prior to researching through the embryonic stem cell. I view embryonic stem cell research as unnecessary until adult stem cell research is further developed.
I´m not sure if I understood what you are saying, but do you think that researching adult stem cells could answer something related about if embryonic stem cells should be accepted ? If yes, then how it would be ?
Originally posted by Regret
[B]I don't misunderstand what scientists want. I view with high skepticism society at large's ability to control itself once the scientists are finished with their research.If the research proves to be beneficial there will be a larger debate as to which embryos should and should not be used when a person's life is on the line.
Originally posted by Regret Due to this, I think that more research should be done with the adult stem cells before we should allow more research into embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell research is still a wide area research could proceed and verify some possibilities prior to researching through the embryonic stem cell. I view embryonic stem cell research as unnecessary until adult stem cell research is further developed.
Harvard burns Bush
Harvard plans stem cell research center
CNN; Cambridge, Massachusetts (AP)Harvard University plans to launch a multimillion-dollar center to grow and study human embryonic stem cells, the school announced.
The center could be the largest privately funded American stem cell research project to date. It must use private funds to create new lines of stem cells because President Bush, citing ethical considerations, has limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to existing lines of cells.
Harvard released a statement Sunday confirming its plans, saying the school is "proceeding in the direction of establishing a stem cell institute." The final details were not complete, the statement said.
"This is very important science that has really enormous prospects to benefit humankind," said Provost Steven E. Hyman. "Throughout the Harvard system, we have scientists working on different aspects of stem cells. The goal here is to bring them together to create a very strong effort."
Harvard has not decided how much money needs to be raised for the center, Hyman said. Scientists involved told the Boston Sunday Globe that the fund-raising goal is about $100 million.
"Harvard has the resources, Harvard has the breadth and, frankly, Harvard has the responsibility to take up the slack that the government is leaving," said Dr. George Q. Daley, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital who is involved in planning the center.
The center, tentatively called the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, would bring together researchers from the university and its affiliated hospitals. About 20 researchers are now working on planning for the center, Hyman said.
Stem cells are found in human embryos, umbilical cords and placentas, and develop into the various types of cells that make up the human body. Scientists hope to someday be able to direct stem cells to grow in laboratories into replacement organs and tissues to treat a wide range of diseases, including Parkinson's and diabetes.
But to harvest embryonic stem cells, researchers must destroy days-old embryos -- a procedure condemned by some religious groups, abortion foes and others.
"Every success will change the argument," said Dr. Leonard Zon, a researcher at Children's Hospital Boston and president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research. "The American people will not stand for scientists not being able to work on their diseases."
Hyman said the Harvard researchers are taking concerns over the use of human stem cells into consideration.
"We've already begun to engage people in the non-science community to help us address ethical and social issues," Hyman said.
Other American research centers also plan privately funded research. Stanford University announced in 2002 a $12 million donation to study cancer by creating human embryonic stem cell lines. The University of Wisconsin, the University of Minnesota and the University of California at San Francisco also have programs.
In California, activists are pushing a $3 billion ballot initiative to finance the work. And the governor of New Jersey said last week that the state would give Rutgers University $6.5 million to create and study new cell lines.
Harvard Stem Cell Institute
http://stemcell.harvard.edu/index.jsp
Originally posted by Alliance
That may be true, however, I dont think society will go around killing people for embryos..or mass harvesting them.
I agree, but it is a possibility that I would consider before doing such.
Originally posted by Alliance
Research develops where you put the money. Fetal stem cells are better than adult stem cells. End of story. Many possiblities have already been identified. People just don't get the cells and fool around, there are clear hypothesis developed already. I don't think you have a valid point, but adult stem cell research shoudl clearly continue.
I agree that the fetal/embryonic stem cells are better. They can become anything, where the adult ones are limited.
I understand the process of getting grant approval and the difficulty in doing anything considered remotely close to being unethical. And so research done is typically very well controlled.
I am not aware of research that could be conducted on an embryonic stem cell that could not be first researched using the adult stem cells of the target area. This is a weakness in my stance, and I do admit that, but I feel that this needs to be addressed to alter my view. My opinion is based on the knowledge I have presently, and unless I am required to make a decision based on the subject I will probably not study it out unless it effects my work in some way.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I´m not sure if I understood what you are saying, but do you think that researching adult stem cells could answer something related about if embryonic stem cells should be accepted ? If yes, then how it would be ?
I think that, other than researching adaptability levels of embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells can be used in research on target areas. Given this, more testing can be done to verify gross hypothesis before extending the research into embryonic stem cells.
But then, I think Alliance stated he dealt with biology, so he probably would know whether this was a viable stance or not. I would probably defer to his scientific opinion if he were to articulate it, although I would ask a few questions if I had them.
I actually see embryonic stem cell research much in the same light as organ donation. If someone is going to die anyways, someone might as well make use of their heart/pancreas/lung/whatever. When someone dies and still has the ability to save a life its worth doing. The stem cells in question are a lot like that hypothetical organ donor. The would die without any further use. If scientists can make something good come out of that waste, I say go for it.
That being said, I also think there should be more research with adult stem cells. Since they have the same genetic codes, a person could be treated with whatever came of them (assuming they are from the same person) with no risk of immunorejection. The only other way to get such a guarantee would be by using cloning tech to make the embryonic stem cells (I'm not completely against such research, but admit that there are ethical concerns)
I see no reason to limt the scope of research. Both embryonic and adult stem cells should be studied. Like anything animal research should come first, but after that, adequate access should be granted to further medicine.
I attended a lecture once where the subject was a guy who's research was in pushing already differentiated cells back to an undifferentiated state. He said that their lab had made muscle cells out of nerve cells. Now if they can get it to go the other way...
That's the real holy grail of this research, then we wouldn't have to worry about embryonic ethics, or immunosuppression treatments.
Originally posted by PVS
i wonder if any of you loud mouth morality force-feeders would keep tooting your horns if you were paralized.(here comes the meaningless statements of what they would do if they were paralized, since they know what its like and what they would do....)
I have a harsh view on life. I come from a large family, 10 kids. People have often mentioned the zero population theory. My personal view is that if people died when nature would take them, without the intervention of the medical field keeping them alive, I would not have had to hear this from self righteous indignant pricks that want to say that somehow life sucks somewhere and if it sucked for me I'd be different. I have lived in poverty, when I was a kid at one point my parents did not have jobs, and we at one point lived in a Chevy Suburban, so don't go off talking about how life could be. Life sucks, that is how it is. I live well now, and I'm happy with it. I have empathy, but I also have other views that need to be considered along with my empathy. Get off your high horse.
And, yes, I know some people would have been happy to have that Suburban, so don't bother going there.
Originally posted by Regret
I have a harsh view on life. I come from a large family, 10 kids. People have often mentioned the zero population theory. My personal view is that if people died when nature would take them, without the intervention of the medical field keeping them alive, I would not have had to hear this from self righteous indignant pricks that want to say that somehow life sucks somewhere and if it sucked for me I'd be different. I have lived in poverty, when I was a kid at one point my parents did not have jobs, and we at one point lived in a Chevy Suburban, so don't go off talking about how life could be. Life sucks, that is how it is. I live well now, and I'm happy with it. I have empathy, but I also have other views that need to be considered along with my empathy. Get off your high horse.And, yes, I know some people would have been happy to have that Suburban, so don't bother going there.
temporarily living is a truck during tough financial times is equal to never being paralized for life? you can have empathy? are you frikin joking?
1- boo frikin who nopity
2- high horse indeed
oh, i soooo anxiously await your next rant. dont disappoint me, please 🙂
Originally posted by PVS
temporarily living is a truck during tough financial times is equal to never being paralyzed for life? you can have empathy? are you frikin joking?
I wasn't saying it was equal. What I was saying is that it is their lot in life. What I was saying is that the "oooh, if you were..." argument is stupid. I'm not paralyzed, and with luck I will not be. The point is, if I were, I would hope that I wouldn't be self-centered enough to alter my opinion based on my personal situation.
Originally posted by Regret
I wasn't saying it was equal. What I was saying is that it is their lot in life. What I was saying is that the "oooh, if you were..." argument is stupid. I'm not paralyzed, and with luck I will not be. The point is, if I were, I would hope that I wouldn't be self-centered enough to alter my opinion based on my personal situation.
see? straight and non-pompous answer. congrats and thank you.
however you have not proven the question to be stupid...but thats ok...
Originally posted by PVS
i wonder if any of you loud mouth morality force-feeders would keep tooting your horns if you were paralized.(here comes the meaningless statements of what they would do if they were paralized, since they know what its like and what they would do....)
Here's what I wouldn't do: live off a science that was created from the intended deaths of others. I still would not support this, no one else would either. 😘
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Here's what I wouldn't do: live off a science that was created from the intended deaths of others. I still would not support this, no one else would either. 😘
dont you mean the death of a bundle of cells? its not even a fetus when they extract cells 😬
people seem to want to paint a picture of absolute horror. a little baby being
brutally murdered so that the sick and unholy may feast on their blood for
nourishment.
Originally posted by PVS
dont you mean the death of a bundle of cells? its not even a fetus when they extract cells 😬people seem to want to paint a picture of absolute horror. a little baby being
brutally murdered so that the sick and unholy may feast on their blood for
nourishment.
I wonder, do you know the process of abortions...they aint the prettiest sight.
And it doesnt even matter what they are when it happens. Human life is not meant to be created for the simple reason of having parts of them harvested -no matter who it saves.
It can be related to the breeding of animals for the simple purpose of being slaughtered for their meat.