Stem Cell Research?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]Well we have the Gay marriage thread again. I don't feel like starting an abortion thread right now, so how about a stem cell thread?

I decided to do this topic a while ago because my new job requires me to work with a lot of chronicly ill people. I have had to work with people with MS (multiple screrosis (SP?)) and cancer. And I have a permanent patient who has demensia. So over the past month I've been thinking a lot about stem cell research (I just haven't had enough time to research it throuroughly and I do appologize for that.)

I've wondered if maybe it could help some of the people I take care of and why there is so much controversy over more studies on it. Yes I understand that a lot of stem cells are harvested from aborted embryos and many people feel that it's wrong to kill in the name of science. But what if those embryos were from invetro fertilization which results in surplis embryos.

But I'm getting ahead of myself aren't I? I guess I just want opinions on the subject. Maybe some pros and cons as well. But as always with controversial threads, let's be mature.[/color][/font]

[Retribution]

[size=1]I read an article in the Washington Post (front page news) that stem cells aren't necessary anymore, because they can extract even more useful cells from the skin shed by the embryo during its course of development. It would be a 100% genetic match for you, and so you could have your own bank of cells that could be used for you in the future.

I'll look for the article later. If it's more than speculation, then the debate very well may be closed.[/size]

[Adahn]

[size=2]I'll do a little Q & A here.[/size]

[size=2]Question: Does stem cell research have anything to do with aborted fetuses?[/size]

[size=2]Answer: No.[/size]

[size=2]Question: Then, what is stem cell research?[/size]

[size=2]Answer: Stem cell research is when you take the diploid nucleus of a person's somatic cell (like a skin cell, not a sex cell) and insert it into an egg that has had the haploid nucleus removed. The result is essentially a clone of the 'donor', which will be genetically identical. The cells from this developing embryo will be completely undifferentiated stem cells, which can then be used to treat the donor for some disease where undifferentiated cells could be useful.[/size]

[size=2]Question: What's the main moral dilemma here?[/size]

[size=2]Answer: The developing embryo has the potential to develop into a human being, albeit a clone, so many would consider it an alive and separate entity, and harvesting stem cells from this being (killing it) would be murder.[/size]

[size=2]Question: Well, that sounds like quite a dilemma, Erik. Is there anything being done to help make this very beneficial research less morally reprehensible?[/size]

[size=2]Answer: Yes, actually. We are now able to take your somatic cell's nucleus, and modify it genetically so that if it were to become undifferentiated, it would not be able to develop into a viable human being. The genes that allow the embryo to coordinate which body parts go where is removed, so if the cluster of cells were allowed to develop, it would have [u]zero potential[/u] to develop into a human being. If implanted into a uterus, it would be aborted without fail.[/size]

[size=2]I think there is a similarity between stem cell research and cancer. Cancerous cells tend to undifferentiate and divide rapidly, forming a tumor. The tumor has no chance of being a person, and cancerous cells are harvested for all sorts of research all the time. Stem cells made from a somatic nucleus and an empty egg are undifferentiated. They will divide up to a point where they will try to move around and differentiate into different structures, but lacking those genes, they will fail and not survive.[/size]

[size=2]I think of stem cells as a sort of induced, harmless cancerous growth, with remarkably useful and therapeutic applications. The only difference is that an empty haploid egg cell is used, rather than a cell that has mutated on its own. There is no fusion of egg and sperm. There is no potential for a new life. There is only a useful technique that could save countless lives and prevent an eternity of pain and suffering.[/size]

[eleanor]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]I read an article in the Washington Post (front page news) that stem cells aren't necessary anymore, because they can extract even more useful cells from the skin shed by the embryo during its course of development. It would be a 100% genetic match for you, and so you could have your own bank of cells that could be used for you in the future.

I'll look for the article later. If it's more than speculation, then the debate very well may be closed.[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=dimgray] Yeah, I remember reading something about that in Newsweek. I couldn't find that particular issue, but there's an article about [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16609288/site/newsweek/"]here[/url] on the MSNBC website. [/color]

[Kanuckgrrl]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=2]There is an alternative way to gather stem cells and thats through the bone marrow in the leg from an adult, but its proven to not be as successfull. I think that If abortion is going to happen, its not like these embryos have a chance to live anyways right? So, what do they do with aborted embryos? Put them in jars? This way their cells can be put to disease research and for giving people back their limbs or their abilitie to walk, or reverse brain damage. Um, the main thing thats been viewed as unethical about stem cell research is its use for cloneing. Its the cloning that has been known to have had horrible and cruel failures, its a waste of resources, and has no real benifits except scientific breakthrough. Theres been many success' other than dolly, but because of the deformities and very low success rate, its difficult to be given the okay.

But other than for cloning, I think that stem cell research is our best chance to fix alot of things.[/SIZE][/COLOR] :animesigh

[Swordsaint]

This one has been touch and go for me for a long while, mainly because it was my understanding that the main source of stem cells came from fetuses that were being/going to be aborted and from a personal standpoint (not even religious, just personal) I find aborrtion to be abhorrent in most cases.

This isn't to say that I don't sympathize with people who could benefit from the cure's/rehabilitative procedures that could be made from utilizing stem cells, I just wanted a different alternative than, in my opinion, denying life to a new human being.

Now, upon learning that there are alternative sources of stem cells that wouldn't require fetuses to be aborted, I feel that stem cell research is a great idea and should be greatly looked into and worked with.

I will say that I do beleive harvesting stem cells from embryos/fetuses is murder because I beleive each to be human from the moment of inception and I beleived that even before I found faith.

[CENTER]* * *[/CENTER]
Answer: Yes, actually. We are now able to take your somatic cell's nucleus, and modify it genetically so that if it were to become undifferentiated, it would not be able to develop into a viable human being. The genes that allow the embryo to coordinate which body parts go where is removed, so if the cluster of cells were allowed to develop, it would have zero potential to develop into a human being. If implanted into a uterus, it would be aborted without fail.
[I]Quote from Adahn[/I]
[CENTER]* * *[/CENTER]

It's about 3 a.m. where I'm at and I'm about to crash (hence why I couldn't remember the regular quote thingumy) Could you perhaps Explain this for me in laymans (SP?) terms? I think I know what your saying, I'd just rather comprehend it before my tired mind tries to discuss it.

[Raiyuu]

I have a Chilean lecturer who is of the opinion that Americans should be less worried about the moral implications of 'killing' undeveloped foetuses and more worried about the moral implications of killing fully developed, patriotic American soldiers by sending them to fight pointless, unpopular wars.

The topic brought it to mind, so I thought I'd throw it into the mix.

[Adahn]

[size=2]Swordsaint,[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I'll do my best to give an explanation suitable for those who aren't hardcore science majors.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]First of all, fetal stem cells are a thing of the past, and no longer very relevant. They [i]are [/i]able to develop into any kind of human tissue, but stem cells taken from fetuses are not genetically identical to the patient they would be used to cure. Research [i]can [/i]be done on them to see how stem cells function, but this is largely seen as morally wrong, because they are taken from aborted fetuses.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[u][size=2]It is no longer necessary to use fetuses for stem cell research.[/size][/u]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]So, what [i]can [/i]we do to obtain stem cells?[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Every cell in your body has a nucleus, and every nucleus contains the same DNA (except for eggs and sperm). Now, your cells have specific functions, but imagine for a moment that one of your skin cells is a newly formed zygote (a fertilized egg). When that cell divides, it has many genes that allow it to go through the incredibly complex process of turning into a fully-developed human being. We can alter that DNA, so that the 'zygote' cannot develop into a human being, because it lacks the genes that coordinate where all your limbs and organs go. Because of this, the 'zygote' cannot develop past a cluster of cells.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Now, each and every one of your cells isn't actually a zygote, but you've got to treat it as one to understand what happens next.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]You take the DNA from one of your own cells, which is the same as any other cell in your body, and you put it into an egg that has had its own DNA removed. The egg's DNA has no potential to be a human being, because it only has half as many genes as a human being. Removing this DNA is no different from a woman discharging an egg cell during her period.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]So, what has been done so far?[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]We've altered the DNA in a single human cell. There shouldn't be anything morally wrong with this, because X-rays and UV-radiation from the sun alter human DNA, also. We are doing nothing that does not occur naturally, just doing it more precisely to achieve a desired effect.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]We've also removed the DNA from an unfertilized egg. This DNA has [u]no potential[/u] to become a human being. No life is lost. If you think one removing one egg cell's DNA has anything to do with killing a human being, then every time a man attempts to impregnate a woman, billions of human beings die (lots and lots of sperm will not survive to fertilize an egg). It just doesn't make sense to humanize eggs or sperm.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]So, what's next?[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]We insert the DNA from one of your cells into the egg cell. This cell is now genetically identical to any one of your cells. The egg cell has no DNA of its own (except for mitochondrial DNA, but that's not important here). This cell can now grow and divide, and every cell is a stem cell. Also, if the person who donated the DNA is sick, these stem cells are genetically identical to that person, so there is no chance of tissue rejection or other related complications.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]So, what haven't we done?[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]1. We have not 'cloned' someone. The cell we have made cannot turn into a human being. It is just a clump of stem cells that will die if they are implanted into a uterus.[/size]
[size=2]2. We have not fertilized an egg, making a new human being. Fertilization requires an egg and sperm to fuse, making a unique and new person. Many people believe that the fusion of egg and sperm is where life begins.[/size]
[size=2]3. We have not violated anything human. Egg and sperm cells die by the trillions upon trillions every day. Removing DNA from an unfertilized egg harms nothing and noone in any way. Removing DNA from someone's cells and modifying it is also nothing new. DNA testing [i]requires[/i] this, and instead of modifying it like we do, they must destroy it.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]So, why is stem cell research an issue?[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]1. People still think stem cell research deals with aborted fetuses.[/size]
[size=2]2. Almost nobody really knows what's going on in the scientific world.[/size]
[size=2]3. People don't trust what scientists say.[/size]
[size=2]4. Stem cell research has been made a political issue, and politicians who argue for [u]and[/u] against it don't know what the hell they're talking about.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I don't know about you, but it sort of pisses me off. There is so much benefit that can be gained from this research, but it's not happening because politicians are pretty much retarded when it comes to science.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]If anyone here can still come up with a reason to oppose stem cell research, I would really like to hear it. I can always use a good laugh. Hell, maybe someone will surprise me and come up with a real reason why we're letting thousands of people suffer for the sake of some obscure, minor, moral dilemma.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][/size]

[Swordsaint]

Alrighty thanks for clearing that up for me. I was sort of close to understanding you last night...now that I'm fully comprehending your previous post I can form a better opinion.

I agree with the methods you described and am more than happy to hear that a fetus doesn't have to be aborted in order to provide a cure for someone. So with that in mind, I do agree with stem cell research.
I don't really humanize sperm or eggs really, however I am of the opinion that once an egg is fertalized that it is a living, growing human being. From there my previous issues with stem cell research should be clear, however again thank you for clearing that up.
Also, I don't know that you should laugh at everyone who opposes stem cell research. Mainly due in part to politicians/news media hype that people get swept up in. yeah it's sad that people always beleive what they're told on the t.v. by people who have no expertise whatsoever in any scientific field, even more so that they themselves don't take the time to research or discuss the issue like we are now.
However I think it would be better to do like you've done now: help clear the issue up and inform people as best you can and leave God/buddah/allah/fate/nature to take care of the rest.

But then again, who am I to say what's better...they say laughter is the best medecine...

[Adahn]

[font=Tahoma][size=2]Well, the whole thing about laughing at any reason for prohibiting stem cell research stems (haha) mainly from my aggravation with how little people understand about the subject.[/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Even if someone does do something wonderful, like changing stem cell research so that it alleviates moral issues, politicians and the public take a distrusting stance, ask for more research, and all the while people are suffering and dying from disabilities that could possibly be cured/prevented by this research. I have very little patience when it comes to things of this nature.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I hate politics, and I think politicians hate science :D [/size]