View Full Version : Stem Cell Ethics and Research
After vetoing his first bill, George W. Bush said that he could not allow the state to cross the line. However, a new method for the extraction of stem cells has come about.
A California biotech company has developed a way to generate human embryonic stem cell colonies without intentionally destroying embryos in the process.
Lead researcher Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology declared Wednesday that "this removes the last rational reason for opposing" research aimed at using the cells to understand and treat diseases.
Lanza's optimism was not widely shared.
Although his team earned praise for trying to address ethical concerns and for technical prowess, opponents of embryonic stem cell research said the approach still poses moral dilemmas.
Proponents, meanwhile, said going to extraordinary lengths to avoid destroying embryos during research is hypocriti- cal, considering that embryos are created and discarded every day in fertility clinics.
"The notion that it solves some kind of a scientific, social or ethical dilemma — I can't say that it does," said molecular biologist Kevin Eggan of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, which is trying to clone human embryos to harvest stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells exist briefly when the embryo grows into a hollow ball of about 80 cells. Extracting these cells kills the embryo, an act that people who oppose abortion equate with murder.
Rather than wait for stem cells to be present in the embryo, Lanza's team capitalized on the fact that an even earlier embryo — of only eight to 10 cells — is resilient and adaptable. Such an embryo can give up one or even two of its cells, called blastomeres, and keep developing normally. Each extracted blastomere is theoretically capable of generating all the tissue types in the body.
Using 16 such embryos, all donated by fertility clinics, Lanza's team extracted blastomeres and chemically signaled them to begin dividing in lab dishes. Then, to trigger the blastomeres to produce embryonic stem cells, the researchers embedded them with embryonic stem cells that had already grown in a separate colony.
In the end, two human embryonic stem cell colonies were generated from 91 blastomeres. Last year, Lanza accomplished the same feat using mouse cells, establishing the scientific feasibility of the approach.
Although his paper did not specify the fate of the donated embryos, he said some continued growing and were put in frozen storage at the stage where they could be implanted in a womb.
Experts and critics see potential problems with the approach. For one thing, removing a blastomere might not be completely harmless. Fertility clinics have been using the procedure for several years to diagnose and discard embryos with certain inherited diseases. The resulting babies seem healthy, but even Lanza says more data are needed.
"We don't want to solve one ethical problem by creating another one," said Princeton University constitutional law expert Robert George, who sits on the President's Council on Bioethics.
For another thing, the blastomere itself might be "totipotent," or capable of producing a whole new person. Although Lanza disputes this, critics say the embryological development of identical twins bolsters the idea.
"Are we doing artificial twinning and then saying, 'Look, we didn't take the other twin's life?' " asked David Stevens, a physician and executive director of the Christian Medical Association in Bristol, Tenn.
Lanza's stem cell advance comes amid a flurry of experiments and proposed legislation aimed at finding uncontroversial methods of making embryonic stem cells. The President's Council on Bioethics issued a report last year outlining possible methods. The one Lanza used was included, but was seen as less promising than methods involving cloning, or tricking adult stem cells to become more like embryonic ones.
Economics, as well as ethics, are driving this search. Embryonic stem cell researchers say they are hamstrung — and have fallen behind internationally — because President Bush in 2001 limited federal funding to a small number of then-existing stem cell colonies. These "presidential" cell lines are now inferior and obsolete, scientists say. Yet private financing for unrestricted research is scarce.
Last month, Bush vetoed a bill that would have expanded federal funding for the research.
Finding a controversy-free way to use the building blocks of life might be impossible, even if technological hurdles are overcome. For example, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who opposes abortion, recently endorsed the concept of cloning a genetically altered embryo-like entity so that it could not survive in the womb — but could yield embryonic stem cells.
Yet for some others, this is no solution; they see it as creating a disabled embryo.
"At this point, stem cell technology is like the Wright Brothers' plane: There are still so many things we don't understand," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan. "Now we're trying to find alternative ways to do what we don't understand."
There are other methods, as shown above, which are "acceptable" and yet some deny it even after the creation of such methods.
This Debate is about the Ethical demand on Stem Cell Research, and what brightlines should be in place between "allowed" and "not-allowed."
The subject of the stem cell research is a very shacky ground morally and ethically..
In the end it all boils down to what we classify a living human being....many different people think it all starts at different times..
Some think it's as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg and has the potential for life that it should be called a humanbeing.
Others believe it can only be called a humanbeing when it resembles one in it's fetus stage at something like 3 months pregnancy...
And yet still others believe it can only be called a seperate human being the moment the umbilical cord is cut and its no longer physically attached to its mother depending on her for survival..Suprisingly enough this can be carried even further to say that a baby is not classified as a human being untill it can fully provide for it'self and sustain it's self independantly...which would mean most of us arn't human too at least 13 years of age.
I believe that Whilst a baby is still in the womb a multiple number of situations can occur which can terminate the pregnancy and as such it cannot be called a human being as it can simply die as easily as that.
As such i believe that any attemp to further the lives and better the lifes of people who are confirmed human beings far outweigh the "lives" of these fetus or hollow balls...
People whom campaign to have a bunch of cells live and develop into a baby to stay alive are idiots...Why arn't they crying over the multiple egg cells and Sperm cells that are lost through masturbation and menustration through a normal persons life..These when combined have the ability to become a human being...Why arn't they abstinating from sex and making sure that each and everyone of their egg cells are saved???
AznPoi
08-28-2006, 04:31 AM
Whoa, AI your post is like serious and funny at the same time.
Anyways, I think they should move forward with stem cell research. If someone "cloned" themself and injected their DNA into an egg then stimulate division as though the egg just fertilized, would it really count as murder if they decide to use it to get the stem cells they need and terminate the egg.
Then there's also abortion. If you think about it, it's basically the same thing. They terminate the egg before it develops nerve cells.
In the early stage of a human embyro, it's just a cluster of cells and nothing more. However, it's when it starts developing nerve cells that I would consider it a human life.
Nicole
08-28-2006, 04:51 AM
I say keep going with it, it's not like we're killing babies or anything. We're just killing cells. Cells die on us everyday.
Now if we were waiting until 3 monthes after the embryos formed it'd be a whole different story. My defination of something 'living' is something that has a heart and organs, an organ system, pretty much.
I put abortion and stem cell research on two different levels, really. Stem cell research is used for primarily the discovery of cures and bettering the human race. Abortion is a cheap, easy, selfish way out of birth control. But that's another topic I won't get into.
DestinyBlade
08-28-2006, 05:06 AM
I personally know nothing about this "stem cell" thing, but I know one thing. It is wrong to tamper with life, as it is not a recyclable experiment object.
Nicole
08-28-2006, 05:43 AM
I personally know nothing about this "stem cell" thing, but I know one thing. It is wrong to tamper with life, as it is not a recyclable experiment object.
Stem cells are cells. Cells are found everywhere, and are created and destroyed by man as well. These are just cells getting created and used for the sake of discovery of diseases.
Embryonic or Stem Cells are almost the same as our normal skin cells. They have the same amount of chromosomes as a stem cell. The only difference is that a stem cell has the ability to differentiate into different organs, form a system, and are created by two haploid cells. It's not technically tampering with life, as people are just forming a clump of cells, as I've mentioned before. If they were forming babies with organ systems, it'd be a lot different. Depends on a person's definition of 'living'.
I personally know nothing about this "stem cell" thing, but I know one thing. It is wrong to tamper with life, as it is not a recyclable experiment object.
So you oppose the fact that research labs use rats in experiments????
Pretty sure their a definition of life and they are pretty recyclable..
Elecoin is right..
Stem cells are the building blocks of everything that makes us. They've tried making artificial Stem cells but these are as not receptive to treatments as the real ones.
At some point Humanity is going to have to draw up an equation weighing the lives of the unborn against the lives of the people that are currently growing up and who will grow up...Sure this will create a very secularized society where the question will be who do we choose but i think the scientists at the moment are doing the right thing....Only using fetus's from abortion clinics are fetus's that are still-born.
Hisaki
08-28-2006, 05:54 PM
Despite Bush's whole "culture of life" standpoint, the embryos he's "saving" from being used for research are normally just dumped in an incinerator like garbage.
Vetoing a bill that promotes stem cell research on "discarded" embryos was a very, very foolish move. Either a minimum of a thousand embryos a year goes into the incinerator, or we use those embryos to save, on average, a hundred thousand lives a year.
What on earth motivated him to take the idiot's way out?
mind_fissure
08-28-2006, 07:41 PM
he took the idiot's way out because he doesn't need anymore people opposing him. hes got enough people hating him for the war.
the ends justify the means. that might sound cold, but its true. a few thousand is worth a few hundred thousand.
Hisaki
08-28-2006, 10:36 PM
he took the idiot's way out because he doesn't need anymore people opposing him. hes got enough people hating him for the war.
the ends justify the means. that might sound cold, but its true. a few thousand is worth a few hundred thousand.
It's still not the best course of action to take. People hate him for the war, yes, but allowing the treatment of hundreds of thousands of people would certainly give him a good boost in the eyes of some. Heck, even fudging a little and saying he was unaware of discarded embryos (which he probably truly is) could work. There's just no way to save those embryos, and using them to help others that would otherwise die would be the best option.
dragoneyes001
08-29-2006, 01:18 AM
he did it because he let his moral objection to one subject cloud his view of another subject.
needless to say he's an idiot even with advisers he can't make intelligent decisions so he goes for what he thinks is the moral majorities(lmao still can't write that and not laugh) stand is to gain support from the anal retentive's who fill his party.
DestinyBlade
08-29-2006, 03:59 AM
Originally Posted by Hisaki
Despite Bush's whole "culture of life" standpoint, the embryos he's "saving" from being used for research are normally just dumped in an incinerator like garbage.
Vetoing a bill that promotes stem cell research on "discarded" embryos was a very, very foolish move. Either a minimum of a thousand embryos a year goes into the incinerator, or we use those embryos to save, on average, a hundred thousand lives a year.
What on earth motivated him to take the idiot's way out?
I Agree. Thanx for the understanding (that "lesson" on stem cells), everyone else. I don't know what to say now (frustration)...
PS. By the way Ai and Elocin, what's with the signitures? I don't even have enough posts to join a squad, and sorry, but I don't really want a cookie (sorry if it sounds noobish)
Stem cells should be allowed especially since they have found a way to extract the cells without destroying the embryo, after all who does it benefit? Us! Why ban it? First world countries say that it is immoral to use stem cells but if their life's depended on it, or an important person's they would say yes to it.
Some people have had success with using stem cells, whereas scientists say that there is no evidence to say so.
There was a program on channel 4 a few months ago about this, and a man had stem cells injected into the part of his brain which controls movement. Before this man could not move his right hand at all. After, he could bend his fingers and thumb. Is that evidence. If they really need that much evidence then why don't they pick a person who is completley paralysed and inject him/her with stem cells, providing they are willing, of course. If it does work then there will be great breakthroughs in the field of regeneration inside the human body. also if they are successful you could inject them into nanobots which could be injected into a persons bloodstream, and the bots being remotley controlled, could navigate their way to the places that the stem cells are needed and place them on top of dead cells, or severed cells. Or the bots could use the stem cells to regenerate neural links in the brain between nerves.
chiking1
09-01-2006, 04:03 PM
I think they should lift the ban on stem cell research, because fetus are not alive yet, therefore, it should be perfectly legal to test on them. If you don't then there isn't much of a point in keeping them, because, honestly, they are useless. So why waste fetus' when you can use them to save human lives?
Why do you classify a fetus as not being alive?
As i said before many differnt people classify a fetus as being a human being at many different stages..
In this debate there is no middle ground you have to state which angle you are coming from and the refute the others opinions or concede to their opinions...
As to being useless..I hardly think so..You were a fetus once and you didn't turn out so useless....No wait...I'm wrong you probably are just as useless as you state..
Why do you classify a fetus as not being alive?
As i said before many differnt people classify a fetus as being a human being at many different stages..
I agree that many people classify a fetus as being a human at different stages, but what about the aborted fetuses? They are now classified as useless so why don't we use them. They are incinerated if they are aborted. Why can't we just take all the cells that we need from it then, or from just before they are aborted, while it is still inside the womb, still alive, so there will be a higher chance that the cells will duplicate.
everblack
09-07-2006, 01:28 PM
rohil, if ur child died as a fetus, even if u had him or her aborted (i kno ur not a female, just think hypotheticaly) would you be willing to let some mad scientist experiment on the dead childs body in the name of science and medical breakthroughs. even if you would a large majority of people wouldnt which is why it is unpractical.
rohil, if ur child died as a fetus, even if u had him or her aborted (i kno ur not a female, just think hypotheticaly) would you be willing to let some mad scientist experiment on the dead childs body in the name of science and medical breakthroughs. even if you would a large majority of people wouldnt which is why it is unpractical.
First of all, the scientists are not mad. Secondly they don't experiment. Thirdly all they do is take some cells from the dead fetus. Fourthly yes I would let them do that, for all I know, those very stem cells could save the live of someone important or someone that I know. Wouldn't you do the same thing?
everblack
09-07-2006, 05:06 PM
no i wouldnt. firtsly there is no reason to take everything i type literally. secondly i would rather have my dead child buried away from needles and other implements that they will use to defile may childs cellular structure.
Nicole
09-07-2006, 06:17 PM
no i wouldnt. firtsly there is no reason to take everything i type literally. secondly i would rather have my dead child buried away from needles and other implements that they will use to defile may childs cellular structure.
This is the debate section. Anything anyone says can be taken literally. Debating jokingly on a topic like this is pointless, if you ask me.
I suppose they could use children that were miscarried, if the parents signed off a consent form. I personally wouldn't mind it myself. I guess this conclusion comes from the fact that I'm against abortion unless there are extreme circumstances (which I won't go into since this is not a debate on abortion).
I personally would prefer that the scientists use created stemcells over ones taken from fetuses, though. Or they could use both. It's fine either way as long as the fetus wasn't alive, as in possessing an organ system and a heart.
everblack
09-07-2006, 06:58 PM
oO i was just over exaggerating the point. Still its not just about individual views. Just because one or two people are willing to allow their dead childen to be subjected to scientific procedures doesnt mean that others will. Also isnt there a way to extract stemcells from the umbilicle cord as well? wouldnt that be a far more practical solution?
Also...
by rohil Today at 04:00 pm
Secondly they don't experiment
lol what are you trying to say, of course scientist experiment, and they would need to expiriment to get the correct method
Nicole
09-07-2006, 07:08 PM
oO i was just over exaggerating the point. Still its not just about individual views. Just because one or two people are willing to allow their dead childen to be subjected to scientific procedures doesnt mean that others will. Also isnt there a way to extract stemcells from the umbilicle cord as well? wouldnt that be a far more practical solution?
Of course I realize that other people would not be comfortable submitting their child (miscarried or whatever) to science, and I respect their opinion on such. I'm just saying that for the better of discovering the cures for diseases, I would.
I've never heard of stem cells being taken out of the umbilical cord... I doubt it, though. As per the definition of a stem cell:
stem cell
Cell Biology
a cell that upon division replaces its own numbers and also gives rise to cells that differentiate further into one or more specialized types, as various B cells and T cells.
Based on that definition, it seems illogical to me that there would be stem cells in a cord designed for transportation of nourishment and waste betwixt mother and child. Stem cells are formed at the beginning of the development of a child. So I say just stick with using miscarried fetuses upon consent or forming embryos and extracting them there.
everblack
09-07-2006, 07:25 PM
Yes, its true tht sacrifices are needed for the greater good of man, but dont you see anything wrong with submitting your baby into the hands of strangers so that they can have thir way with him or her? Also is it correct for humans to abuse the human body in such a way even if the person in question is dead?
and i have heard that stem cells can be found in the umbilical cord, as the cord actually transports the blood of the baby so that materials in the blood can diffuse from the mother to the baby and vice versa. If you think of it that way its reasonable to say that there are stem cells in the blood of the baby and in the umbilical cord.
Nicole
09-07-2006, 07:35 PM
Actually, not really. The child would be dead, and that child would be in the hand of science. How is it any different than sending an adult human to science or donating your organs after you die so that another person could live?
If there are stem cells in the umbilical cord, then why haven't scientists used them yet, I wonder...
everblack
09-07-2006, 07:47 PM
ah ha. There is a big difference as the adult is capable of making up their own mind on how they are treated after death. As a baby has no chance I see it as unfair if its body is used in anyway. And you cannot tell me that a baby would be depressed if its body was laid to rest. I think that out of respect and compassion fetuses and babys should not be subject to scientific treatment.
And with the umbilical cord thing i have no iddea what exactly is going on. I said before that i only heard about it. and it may not be so simple to derive stem cells from an umbilical cord.
Nicole
09-07-2006, 09:53 PM
ah ha. There is a big difference as the adult is capable of making up their own mind on how they are treated after death. As a baby has no chance I see it as unfair if its body is used in anyway. And you cannot tell me that a baby would be depressed if its body was laid to rest. I think that out of respect and compassion fetuses and babys should not be subject to scientific treatment.
The fetus is dead, and the fetus has no logic of death or whatnot. In fact, if it's an embryo or fetus it's not technically fully formed either. I'm not talking about human babies, and even then fetuses are dependant on the mother and has no logic of death or whatever. I see it as fair as the baby has no comprehension of life at all, or much of anything, and is reliant on the parent to live. So I think the parent should decide what happens to a the fetus.
I think it's a noble choice to further help mankind. I'd be honored to help if I was dead.
If there are stem cells in the umbilical cord, then why haven't scientists used them yet, I wonder...
Actually scientists do use stem cells from the umbilical cord. There have been some well known football players that have used them like for example Thierry Henry. He has take stem cells from the umbilical cord and had them stored in case his child has a need of them in the future, or even for himself. This is because the stem cells are half of his DNA so theoretically his body should not reject the stem cells if he has a need for them in the future.
the other reason why scientists don't use the stem cells form the umbilical cord is because the ones that can be gained from a fetus are less advanced in the terms of mitosis as they have had less time to replicate, depending on how advanced the fetus is.
And since there less developed they are much easier to manipulate and to research on for the scientists...
The question in this debate is whether it is morally and ethically right to destroy a Feutus...?
I personally say no now...Because i believe it isn't a person untill it has a chance of surviving by it'self if it prematurally came..So about 2 months before birth ...
What are peoples definition of what makes a feutus a human being and why?
Well the thing is that many people think that it is morally and ethically right to destroy fetuses, the thing that people are worried about is using that fetus to harvest stem cells. I personally think that if you are going to abort a fetus, why not let the doctors put that fetus to its maximum potential as a life saver?
True..
The people that oppose this are the people that are against abortion and i suppose they try to justify their arguement with the fact that taking life is wrong and is against the bible or whatever...
What are the arguements people against abortion usually come up with..I havn't studied this arguement so i have no idea it would be helpfull for someone to enlighten us all..
Nicole
09-12-2006, 06:55 PM
True..
The people that oppose this are the people that are against abortion and i suppose they try to justify their arguement with the fact that taking life is wrong and is against the bible or whatever...
What are the arguements people against abortion usually come up with..I havn't studied this arguement so i have no idea it would be helpfull for someone to enlighten us all..
Oddly, I'm for stem-cell research but against abortion. But for me, abortion isn't really all about killing a child. It's the different motives behind abortion and stem-cell research that causes me to have different views about each of them.
I think there are different methods, as have been stated, that doctors/scientists can use to get stem cells instead of using aborted fetuses. And it can help save lives, so more power to it.
Insight
09-13-2006, 01:14 AM
i am for stem cell research. i hate people who piss and moan about stem cell research bieng unethical even though it could save millions of lives and yet couldn't give a shit about the millions of lives dying in africa. instead to try and save a feotus which is BARELY alive they spend millions campaigning to have the research banned when the money they spend could save millions of people that ARE ALIVE in africa and all over the world.
can people not add up 1 saved phoetus isn't worth an aid to curing diseases and saving 2 people who are alive.
yes in a perfect world there would be no stem cell research as there would be no disease and no poverty in africa but we do't and one possible life is not worth 2 actual lives.
Stem cell research is not done for the sick people in africa, stem cell research is done for everyone. Right now stem cell research can only be used on other people if the cells have been taken from a fetus.
It's the different motives behind abortion and stem-cell research that causes me to have different views about each of them.
Right now taking stem cells from a fetus is the only way to get stem cells, plus that new way that the american scientists found, but I don't think it will be in operation for a while yet.
And it can help save lives, so more power to it.
I totally agree with you as it can help save lives, and not only lives of those who are dying but also those who are paralysed or are disabled.
Insight
09-13-2006, 11:27 PM
Stem cell research is not done for the sick people in africa, stem cell research is done for everyone.
i know that. what i was saying is that the people who campaign to stop stem cell research spend lots of money trying to get it banned because a feotus life is so important when that money could be spent saving lifes in africa and those millions of lives must therfore be less important to be ignored over a pheotus. which is stupid.
if those people instead spent there money on ending poverty it would save millions of lives and help cure many desease's all for the cost of a few fetus'
Not really...All it would do would improve the quality of life for few in those country's...
If you take the arguement that those people should instead use their money for charity instead it's like saying "No don't worry we're not going to spend money on world peace..We're going to buy more weapons."
It all comes down to stipulating lifes as a set of numbers...which outweighs which..A baby which could grow into a healthy child and create a cure for cancer...Or an adult which could be cured by the baby's stem cells...
So it comes down to
a) What is considered a human being..
and
b) Which life is more precious?
Here's my 2 cents:
1) There is a dichotomy between "Humanity" and "Bare Life." Human is the group which one (soveirgn) wields power over, and wants to protect at all costs. This soveirgn also controls another group whom are "Bare Life" and they are considered disposable. They are protected, and yet, in their own name, they can be annihilated. They are a part of violence, necessitated by the soviergn, and the soviergn can declare war against them in their own name. Confusing, eh?
2) Here's something that's even more confusing... We are all soveirgn over others at any time. We control a group we consider "human" and we want to keep it sacred and holy, as a relic to be furnished and held. These are our close friends and family, most of the time. However, we also have "acquantances"(spelling...sry) who we consider disposible (like "Bare Life") if danger comes to those whom we consider to be human.
All relationships work in this way.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.