Stem Cell breakthrough

[Boz]

Very interesting article in the WP today. Posting as a follow-up to an earlier thread couple of months back where this was a topic of conversation.

tinyurl.com/377yor

Hopefully with more breakthroughs like these, stem cell progress can move beyond the sensitive political & ethical issues (despite the downer conclusion of the Post article) and advance in research, and to eventually clinical trials and treatments (though still a long way off).

[EasyEd]

If anyone thinks this will decrease the cry for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, he/she is badly mistaken. Some will think up all kinds of excuses to further the destruction of embryos (and fetuses, for that matter). They will question the results, say it will take too long for it to be useful, etc., etc. The same people that adore science when it comes to other issues will ignore science when it does not fit their agenda.

[hoyatables]

ed said:

If anyone thinks this will decrease the cry for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, he/she is badly mistaken. Some will think up all kinds of excuses to further the destruction of embryos (and fetuses, for that matter). They will question the results, say it will take too long for it to be useful, etc., etc. The same people that adore science when it comes to other issues will ignore science when it does not fit their agenda.

Or is it that the same people who ignore science suddenly adore and adopt science when it does fit their agenda?

[Bando]

ed said:

If anyone thinks this will decrease the cry for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, he/she is badly mistaken. Some will think up all kinds of excuses to further the destruction of embryos (and fetuses, for that matter). They will question the results, say it will take too long for it to be useful, etc., etc. The same people that adore science when it comes to other issues will ignore science when it does not fit their agenda.

I've got hay in my hair. Did somebody blow up a straw man around here?

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

I wonder how all of this relates to thermodynamics ...

[bubbrubbhoya]

Seems to me that easyed's reasoning has been consistent throughout, so there's no reason to be snarky in jumping all over him.

[hoyarooter]

bubbrubbhoya said:

Seems to me that easyed's reasoning has been consistent throughout, so there's no reason to be snarky in jumping all over him.

Why not? That's what we do best here!

Ed is at least partly correct. There are certainly those with a vested interest in stem cell research who will look for every excuse to criticize competing developments. OTOH, an honest appraisal of the situation by those who believe that this type of research is extremely valuable will probably lead to the conclusion that every avenue should continue to be pursued.

[hifigator]

I for one, have said all along that the (generally) conservatives against funding stem cell research are wrong. Even though I am conservative/libertarian, I part companies with many on the right on this one. I said then and I say it now that Nancy Reagan was right on this issue and George W. Bush was wrong.

With regards to this new discovery, I think it gives us tremendous possibility and I can only hope that ed is wrong in his prediction. There are always risk/reward issues, and in this case I think it is clear that the reward is worth the risk/cost.

[EasyEd]

"OTOH, an honest appraisal of the situation by those who believe that this type of research is extremely valuable will probably lead to the conclusion that every avenue should continue to be pursued. "

I agree except when it comes to killing an embryo.

This is one of the examples I had in mind when I said that people would accept science when it fit their agenda and discard it when it did not. Science says an embryo and the fetus, child and adult that follow in a continuum are one and the same being. Those with an opposing agenda discard this science by saying we do not know when personhood begins. But science says we do know that embryo, fetus, child and adult are one and the same being, proven by DNA. The issue of personhood is merely introduced to try to get around the scientific evidence and stick to one's agenda.

[lightbulbbandit]

ed said:

"OTOH, an honest appraisal of the situation by those who believe that this type of research is extremely valuable will probably lead to the conclusion that every avenue should continue to be pursued. "

I agree except when it comes to killing an embryo.

I am curious ed, how do draw the line here when the embryo would be destroyed anyways even if none of this morally objectionable research was done? Or do you think the embryo should be kept by the labs indefinitely?

And I ask this question as somebody how is by and large in agreement with you about human life and abortion in general.

[EasyEd]

lightbulbbandit said:

ed said:

"OTOH, an honest appraisal of the situation by those who believe that this type of research is extremely valuable will probably lead to the conclusion that every avenue should continue to be pursued. "

I agree except when it comes to killing an embryo.

I am curious ed, how do draw the line here when the embryo would be destroyed anyways even if none of this morally objectionable research was done? Or do you think the embryo should be kept by the labs indefinitely?

And I ask this question as somebody how is by and large in agreement with you about human life and abortion in general.

The answer to your question is that these embryos should never have been created in the first place if they are only going to be killed (destroyed in your term). Since some have already been created the only acceptable option is to offer them to someone who would agree to having them emplanted and ultimately give birth. So it is not correct to say they would only be killed anyway.

"Fertility clinics", where humans are started via "test tubes" and only those they think have a chance for survival if emplanted are are actually emplanted and the rest killed are nothing but giant halocaust-mimics. Scientifically there is no difference.

[lightbulbbandit]

ed said:

The answer to your question is that these embryos should never have been created in the first place if they are only going to be killed (destroyed in your term). Since some have already been created the only acceptable option is to offer them to someone who would agree to having them emplanted and ultimately give birth. So it is not correct to say they would only be killed anyway.

"Fertility clinics", where humans are started via "test tubes" and only those they think have a chance for survival if emplanted are are actually emplanted and the rest killed are nothing but giant halocaust-mimics. Scientifically there is no difference.

Doesn't really answer my question, you just gave guidelines you would like to see regulate the entire industry.

The reality is that the embryos used in stem cell research come from fertility clinics. Something must be done with them and if they are not used by another woman or couple that wants it, they are discarded. Whether they should be discarded entirely is another issue and distracts entirely from the issue of the use of them in research. Trying to turn the discussion of embryonic stem cell research into that debate is just a way to skirt the issue.

So since reality of those about to be discarded/destroyed/killed unused embryos is not changing anytime soon, why is the embryo/society/mankind better off by doing so without research as opposed to with research being performed on it?

[Bando]

ed said:

This is one of the examples I had in mind when I said that people would accept science when it fit their agenda and discard it when it did not. Science says an embryo and the fetus, child and adult that follow in a continuum are one and the same being. Those with an opposing agenda discard this science by saying we do not know when personhood begins. But science says we do know that embryo, fetus, child and adult are one and the same being, proven by DNA. The issue of personhood is merely introduced to try to get around the scientific evidence and stick to one's agenda.

Ed, we've been over this before. No one is debating the biological beginning of life. What is being debated is when moral personhood begins. I understand that debating straw men is much easier than actually addressing the arguments of those you're debating, but this issue is contentious enough without you making up.

[EasyEd]

Bando - I made the assertion that the new discoveries would not end the discussion of the use of embryos for stem cell research and you have proven my point. I also stated that persons with an agenda will ignore science if it conflicts with their agenda. Again, you have proven my point. In this case you seem to be saying you believed the science and called it the biological beginning of life but you then ignore the findings and create some item called "moral personhood" knowing that this is subject to different interpretations by different people. I could choose to say that moral personhood does not occur until one is in advanced adulthood because everything that precedes it still has maturation ahead of it. Another could say moral personhood does not occur until a person has reached the age of reason. In other words, since it is merely a person's opinion, no one can prove you wrong. Suffice it to say that if I tried to use something similar in presenting my beliefs about climate change or evolution by creating something no one could prove wrong, you'd be at my throat.

And, lightbulb, you still seem to be saying the only possible use of "leftover" embryos is to offer them to stem cell researchers who will kill them. That's not true. As I said earlier, suppose the fertility clinics were to make it their policy to first offer them to persons for emplantation; or, secondly, to plan to freeze them and store them for later use in emplantation? In other words, rather than having a policy that they will be offered to researchers or killed in-house, offer a different policy that does not kill them. Why is killing them the first option? Or the only option? Under any circumstances how does the end (research) justify the means (killing the embryo)?

Those who foster views that lead to embryo-killing or abortion never seem to want to discuss the issue of what is being done. Instead they create subterfuges like "choice", "potential humans" or "moral personhood" - all to avoid discussing what is being done, that is, a killing.

[lightbulbbandit]

ed said:

And, lightbulb, you still seem to be saying the only possible use of "leftover" embryos is to offer them to stem cell researchers who will kill them. That's not true. As I said earlier, suppose the fertility clinics were to make it their policy to first offer them to persons for emplantation; or, secondly, to plan to freeze them and store them for later use in emplantation? In other words, rather than having a policy that they will be offered to researchers or killed in-house, offer a different policy that does not kill them. Why is killing them the first option? Or the only option? Under any circumstances how does the end (research) justify the means (killing the embryo)?

Okay, so I see you saying that they shouldn't be destroyed, that they should keep them until somebody else uses it. We know that they do not already keep them, so it is reasonable to assume that it is not cost effective for the fertility clinic to do so. This would mean you think either: a) there should be some kind of regulatory law forcing the fertility clinic (or whatever the place is called) to keep the embryos until implanted in someone; or b) the clinic should make an independent, voluntary decision to keep them indefinitely despite the costly nature of that plan, presumably making this decision on a moral basis of not wanting to destroy life.

If you meant option b, then we are back to my earlier question because they are being destroyed, so why not use them in research. We see every day corporations and businesses making decisions based only on making money, its unfortunate but it is the way US law is structured and will continue to be structured. Unfortunately too many people in America think the market takes care of such issues by itself.

If you meant option a, well okay then that would ensure that such clinics/businesses no longer destroy unused embryos and I understand your desire to see more government regulation in that area in order to stop the destruction of human life. (Of course I am assuming like you that the embryos can be preserved indefinitely, which I don't know the facts of). At least under this option you are actually arguing that something be done (implausible that it will be done, but you do have an answer) as opposed to just making impossible proclamations about the way the world should be.

[The Stig]

I think any development that gets us closer to realizing the full medical potential of stem cells is a good thing. It's upsetting that we (and by 'we' I mean humanity) lost 6 years of potential progress due to interference from political pseudo-science, but if this new development allows for full federal funding for stem cell research then I'm all for it.

On the issue of using actual embryonic stem cells, I really don't see the moral problem in taking an embryo that's slated for destruction anyways and using it for medical research. It's not like the evil scientists are conducting commando raids on fertility clinics in the middle of the night to steal all the embryos (although Bando might be doing that ). A basic fact of a fertility clinic is that they produce more embryos than they use. Offering the embryo to another family is fine, but what if nobody takes it? Do you freeze it for all of time? At some point you're going to get to a point where the chances of that embryo becoming a living (i.e. post-birth) human being are virtually nil. At that point I think it's okay to use the embryo for medical research, even if that involves killing the embryo.

Think of it this way: Suppose doctors find a cure for a disease using embryonic (or these new pseudo-embryonic) stem cells. Do you want to be the one who tells the family of the person who died from this disease the year before the cure came out that their loved one wasn't saved by this cure because research was delayed for 6 years by a politician who prevented the research to "save life", even though the life in question (the embryos) were already slated for destruction?