Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 From what I've read elsewhere, it doesn't appear to me that this new technique has resolved any of the controversies. In fact, it increases the complexity of unknown effects on the tampered embryos. Existing ESC technology merely takes a human embryo and destroys it to extract the promising cells. This new technique will extract the cells while retaining a human embryo that has been significantly altered in ways no one can predict. Which is worse? The old controversy was about killing people to create a cure for disease. This new technique will create a controversy over genetically altering embryos and then allowing them to be born without anyone knowing the effects of the change. > > Maybe this is the way around the so-called moral objections to > stem-cell research. > http://tinyurl.com/llohw > > > Tokyo > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 The only question I'm interested in is whether this technnique would allow researchers to get around the current legal restrictions and thus get access to millions of dollars of badly needed funding for life-saving research. The law says that federal money cannot be used for research in which embryos are destroyed. In this technique, embryonic stem cells can be produced without destroying the embryo. The decision as to whether the embryos are subsequently implanted or discarded (as embryos routinely are in the course of IVF treatment) is not part of the research, so hopefully this technique circumvents the rules. It's sad that scientists have been forced to waste time researching ways to get around these assinine rules when they should be advancing stem-cell treatments for SMA, ALS etc., but that's what happens when the people making the rules prioritize the " welfare " of a few cells ahead of the welfare of living human beings. BTW, the controversy is most certainly not about " killing people to create a cure for disease " . No people have been or will be killed, because that would be murder. The controversy is about two things: First and foremost, appealing to fanatical religious zealots so that they will vote Republican in November's congressional elections, and second (a very distant second) whether balls of cells WHICH WILL BE DESTROYED ANYWAY should be used to advance life-saving research before they are destroyed. , Tokyo 2006/8/24, <way2square@...>: > > From what I've read elsewhere, it doesn't appear to me that this new > technique has resolved any of the controversies. In fact, it > increases the complexity of unknown effects on the tampered > embryos. Existing ESC technology merely takes a human embryo and > destroys it to extract the promising cells. This new technique will > extract the cells while retaining a human embryo that has been > significantly altered in ways no one can predict. Which is worse? > The old controversy was about killing people to create a cure for > disease. This new technique will create a controversy over > genetically altering embryos and then allowing them to be born > without anyone knowing the effects of the change. > > > > > > > > > Maybe this is the way around the so-called moral objections to > > stem-cell research. > > http://tinyurl.com/llohw > > > > > > Tokyo > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 The technique, as described in the article & others, is as-used-already in PGD in-vitro fertilization techniques. My cousin gave birth to her daughter 2 years ago using this very same technique after undergoing PGD to avoid passing on a dominant gene related disease to her children (that my cousin had already been diagnosed as having). While I am no expert, the PDG method of removing a single cell from the newly formed cluster of cells does absolutely nothing to the child that is born. I don't think it can be accurately stated that the described method " significantly altered " the devloping embryo - what I do know, is thanks to PGD techniques, I know my cousin's daughter is a beautiful, smart little girl - and does not have genetic instructions in her dna coding for a deadly dominant gene related disease. The described technique has been used for quite some time - and I know of several couples who've lost children to SMA who've had additional children using this method. One ethical question I've heard raised was that the removed single cell - could, by rare occurrence under normal developmental conditions, break apart from the main developing embryo and develop on its own into a twin. Not sure I agree with that particular objection - seems to be reaching. The main point, though, is, the developing embryo is not harmed in any way by the PGD in-vitro fertilization technique - to my knowledge - though the scientists really don't seem to care about this new avenue to create stem cell lines, it seems pretty promising particularly from the political and ethical/moral viewpoint. I'm sure there will be far more educated explanations offered by scientists & doctors on this issue. Personally, I think this is certainly a good development in the arena of ESC research. Are opponents of any sort of ESC research - even when using methods similar to PGD as described in the article in which the embryo not harmed - thus opposed to all forms of in-vitro conception to allow otherwise infertile couples (or fertility-wise, incompatible) have children? Or in the case of someone who carries the genetic instructions in his/her DNA of a dominant disease (meaning, they will present symptoms of the disease one way or another - unlike a recessive gene related disease like SMA) - do opponents of PGD techniques want to deny them the opportunity of having children? --- <way2square@...> wrote: > From what I've read elsewhere, it doesn't appear to > me that this new > technique has resolved any of the controversies. In > fact, it > increases the complexity of unknown effects on the > tampered > embryos. Existing ESC technology merely takes a > human embryo and > destroys it to extract the promising cells. This > new technique will > extract the cells while retaining a human embryo > that has been > significantly altered in ways no one can predict. > Which is worse? > The old controversy was about killing people to > create a cure for > disease. This new technique will create a > controversy over > genetically altering embryos and then allowing them > to be born > without anyone knowing the effects of the change. > > > > > > > > > Maybe this is the way around the so-called moral > objections to > > stem-cell research. > > http://tinyurl.com/llohw > > > > > > Tokyo > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 The technique, as described in the article & others, is as-used-already in PGD in-vitro fertilization techniques. My cousin gave birth to her daughter 2 years ago using this very same technique after undergoing PGD to avoid passing on a dominant gene related disease to her children (that my cousin had already been diagnosed as having). While I am no expert, the PDG method of removing a single cell from the newly formed cluster of cells does absolutely nothing to the child that is born. I don't think it can be accurately stated that the described method " significantly altered " the devloping embryo - what I do know, is thanks to PGD techniques, I know my cousin's daughter is a beautiful, smart little girl - and does not have genetic instructions in her dna coding for a deadly dominant gene related disease. The described technique has been used for quite some time - and I know of several couples who've lost children to SMA who've had additional children using this method. One ethical question I've heard raised was that the removed single cell - could, by rare occurrence under normal developmental conditions, break apart from the main developing embryo and develop on its own into a twin. Not sure I agree with that particular objection - seems to be reaching. The main point, though, is, the developing embryo is not harmed in any way by the PGD in-vitro fertilization technique - to my knowledge - though the scientists really don't seem to care about this new avenue to create stem cell lines, it seems pretty promising particularly from the political and ethical/moral viewpoint. I'm sure there will be far more educated explanations offered by scientists & doctors on this issue. Personally, I think this is certainly a good development in the arena of ESC research. Are opponents of any sort of ESC research - even when using methods similar to PGD as described in the article in which the embryo not harmed - thus opposed to all forms of in-vitro conception to allow otherwise infertile couples (or fertility-wise, incompatible) have children? Or in the case of someone who carries the genetic instructions in his/her DNA of a dominant disease (meaning, they will present symptoms of the disease one way or another - unlike a recessive gene related disease like SMA) - do opponents of PGD techniques want to deny them the opportunity of having children? --- <way2square@...> wrote: > From what I've read elsewhere, it doesn't appear to > me that this new > technique has resolved any of the controversies. In > fact, it > increases the complexity of unknown effects on the > tampered > embryos. Existing ESC technology merely takes a > human embryo and > destroys it to extract the promising cells. This > new technique will > extract the cells while retaining a human embryo > that has been > significantly altered in ways no one can predict. > Which is worse? > The old controversy was about killing people to > create a cure for > disease. This new technique will create a > controversy over > genetically altering embryos and then allowing them > to be born > without anyone knowing the effects of the change. > > > > > > > > > Maybe this is the way around the so-called moral > objections to > > stem-cell research. > > http://tinyurl.com/llohw > > > > > > Tokyo > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 , As far as the science goes, I don't think we fundamentally disagree. But, how much of what you said is motivated by a political agenda as opposed to the search for scientific benefits? There is no scientific pursuit that can be entirely separated from all moral dimension. Even the most basic decision you make or simplest task you perform has a moral effect on other people. How you drive your car or perform your job ripples everywhere whether you want to believe that or not. Unfortunately, pop culture thinks there's some sort of independent scientific truth that, once revealed, will guide everyone to the right things to do in life. The popular view is that if you simply do whatever you want and follow some animal instinct you will arrive at the best situation for everyone. That belief is a quirky morality in itself. So, rather than blindly promoting scientists ability to do whatever they want just because it can be done, why not ask basic questions like… At what point is a cell a living being? Is it okay to kill a few to save many? To make such inquiries is not religious zealotry. These important discussions will create the basis of medical advances instead of letting enstein come alive and then later trying to decide how society should treat him. I am not coming down on either side of the stem cell debate. This issue is definitely being politically manipulated by both sides. The " Pro " side wants you to believe in some sinister conspiracy of religious extremists trying to impose a theocracy on the world. The " Con " side wants you to believe that shallow elitists are trying to create a new world order based on the perfect human. The joke for me is that both accusations are moral arguments. I encourage you not to let a watered-down pop culture morality dictate how you view this issue. If you try to remove all moral considerations from the issue, that's what you end up with. You get used by someone else's political agenda, but the science is not furthered. > > The only question I'm interested in is whether this technnique would > allow researchers to get around the current legal restrictions and > thus get access to millions of dollars of badly needed funding for > life-saving research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2006 Report Share Posted August 24, 2006 If we agree on the science, that's good enough for me. However, just to address some other points you raised: What I said is not motivated by any political agenda, unless concern for my daughter is a political agenda. Opponents of stem-cell research are essentially saying that my daughter and other kids with life-threatening diseases are worth no more than surplus embryos. You apparently view that as a valid moral position; I view it as contemptible nonsense. It is no more moral than the position - held by many of the same people - that the deaths of hundreds of children in Lebanon should be celebrated because the war is a sign that a cultish prophesy known as the " rapture " is about to come true. I do not believe the opinions of these people deserve to be taken seriously. My moral position on stem cell research is that using surplus embryos for research is a price worth paying for progress in curing SMA and a whole range of other diseases. I don't see how that equates to " removing all moral considerations from the issue. " And I certainly don't see what it has to do with pop culture. That's a bizarre comment. I'll readily admit that I'm following an animal instinct - namely, protecting my daughter. But since I am after all an animal, species homo sapiens, I can't see what's wrong with that. Tokyo 2006/8/25, <way2square@...>: > > , > As far as the science goes, I don't think we fundamentally > disagree. But, how much of what you said is motivated by a > political agenda as opposed to the search for scientific benefits? > > There is no scientific pursuit that can be entirely separated from > all moral dimension. Even the most basic decision you make or > simplest task you perform has a moral effect on other people. How > you drive your car or perform your job ripples everywhere whether > you want to believe that or not. Unfortunately, pop culture thinks > there's some sort of independent scientific truth that, once > revealed, will guide everyone to the right things to do in life. > The popular view is that if you simply do whatever you want and > follow some animal instinct you will arrive at the best situation > for everyone. That belief is a quirky morality in itself. > > So, rather than blindly promoting scientists ability to do whatever > they want just because it can be done, why not ask basic questions > like¡Ä At what point is a cell a living being? Is it okay to kill a > few to save many? To make such inquiries is not religious > zealotry. These important discussions will create the basis of > medical advances instead of letting enstein come alive and then > later trying to decide how society should treat him. > > I am not coming down on either side of the stem cell debate. This > issue is definitely being politically manipulated by both sides. > The " Pro " side wants you to believe in some sinister conspiracy of > religious extremists trying to impose a theocracy on the world. > The " Con " side wants you to believe that shallow elitists are trying > to create a new world order based on the perfect human. The joke > for me is that both accusations are moral arguments. > > I encourage you not to let a watered-down pop culture morality > dictate how you view this issue. If you try to remove all moral > considerations from the issue, that's what you end up with. You get > used by someone else's political agenda, but the science is not > furthered. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 , With all respect, I think you are hostile toward anything that in your estimation appears to be informed by religion. The stem cell debate is much larger than that. > > If we agree on the science, that's good enough for me. However, just > to address some other points you raised: > > What I said is not motivated by any political agenda, unless concern > for my daughter is a political agenda. Opponents of stem-cell research > are essentially saying that my daughter and other kids with > life-threatening diseases are worth no more than surplus embryos. You > apparently view that as a valid moral position; I view it as > contemptible nonsense. It is no more moral than the position - held by > many of the same people - that the deaths of hundreds of children in > Lebanon should be celebrated because the war is a sign that a cultish > prophesy known as the " rapture " is about to come true. I do not > believe the opinions of these people deserve to be taken seriously. > > My moral position on stem cell research is that using surplus embryos > for research is a price worth paying for progress in curing SMA and a > whole range of other diseases. I don't see how that equates to > " removing all moral considerations from the issue. " And I certainly > don't see what it has to do with pop culture. That's a bizarre > comment. > > I'll readily admit that I'm following an animal instinct - namely, > protecting my daughter. But since I am after all an animal, species > homo sapiens, I can't see what's wrong with that. > > > Tokyo > > > 2006/8/25, <way2square@...>: > > > > , > > As far as the science goes, I don't think we fundamentally > > disagree. But, how much of what you said is motivated by a > > political agenda as opposed to the search for scientific benefits? > > > > There is no scientific pursuit that can be entirely separated from > > all moral dimension. Even the most basic decision you make or > > simplest task you perform has a moral effect on other people. How > > you drive your car or perform your job ripples everywhere whether > > you want to believe that or not. Unfortunately, pop culture thinks > > there's some sort of independent scientific truth that, once > > revealed, will guide everyone to the right things to do in life. > > The popular view is that if you simply do whatever you want and > > follow some animal instinct you will arrive at the best situation > > for everyone. That belief is a quirky morality in itself. > > > > So, rather than blindly promoting scientists ability to do whatever > > they want just because it can be done, why not ask basic questions > > like¡Ä At what point is a cell a living being? Is it okay to kill a > > few to save many? To make such inquiries is not religious > > zealotry. These important discussions will create the basis of > > medical advances instead of letting enstein come alive and then > > later trying to decide how society should treat him. > > > > I am not coming down on either side of the stem cell debate. This > > issue is definitely being politically manipulated by both sides. > > The " Pro " side wants you to believe in some sinister conspiracy of > > religious extremists trying to impose a theocracy on the world. > > The " Con " side wants you to believe that shallow elitists are trying > > to create a new world order based on the perfect human. The joke > > for me is that both accusations are moral arguments. > > > > I encourage you not to let a watered-down pop culture morality > > dictate how you view this issue. If you try to remove all moral > > considerations from the issue, that's what you end up with. You get > > used by someone else's political agenda, but the science is not > > furthered. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Just like always, it seems the hype is greater than the reality with stem cell news... http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/623lt mpg.asp > > Maybe this is the way around the so-called moral objections to > stem-cell research. > http://tinyurl.com/llohw > > > Tokyo > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 , No, actually I only cautioned against mixing politics with science. I didn't mention anything about extremists. On the other hand, I believe it was you who said the people who raise any questions about stem cell research are killing children in Lebanon. I tip my aluminum foil hat to you. > > , > > You mentioned in a previous mail that we shouldn't get drawn in by the > extremists on either side of the stem-cell debate, so please let's not > get drawn in by The Weekly Standard. It's a bastion of that most > peculiar of phenomena in twenty-first America: the war on science. > Climate-change deniers, creationists... you name them, they're in the > WS. I was searching for the flat-earthers' column, but perhaps it's > subscription-only. > > , > Tokyo > > > > 2006/8/30, <way2square@...>: > > > > Just like always, it seems the hype is greater than the reality with > > stem cell news... > > > > http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/623 lt > > mpg.asp > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 , > On the other hand, I believe it was you who said the people who > raise any questions about stem cell research are killing children > in Lebanon. I don't think that's quite what I said, actually. I said the people who are vehemently opposed to stem-cell research on religious grounds are in many cases the same people who celebrated the recent war in Lebanon as a sign that the " rapture " was imminent. Don't take my word for it - go to any fundamentalist website and you'll find both views being expressed quite openly by the same people. Don't mix politics with science? Amen to that!! Let stem-cell researchers get on with stem-cell research, and let politicians get on with... er... what is it they're supposed to do again? , Tokyo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.