Conquer Club

I'm pretty ignorant on the whole stem cell debate. But when I see things like this, I can't help but wonder why anyone is against it (so can someone educate me?):

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429222/paralyzed-rats-walk-again-after-stem-cell/

Because of the bolded portion:

Neural stem cells, derived from aborted fetal spinal cord tissue, were implanted onto

aborted fetuses aren't the only source of stem cells...

Night Strike wrote:Because of the bolded portion:

Neural stem cells, derived from aborted fetal spinal cord tissue, were implanted onto

I feel like that's a different debate though. As far as I know, most of those cells would just be thrown out anyway, so why not give a use to them?

maasman wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Because of the bolded portion:

Neural stem cells, derived from aborted fetal spinal cord tissue, were implanted onto

I feel like that's a different debate though. As far as I know, most of those cells would just be thrown out anyway, so why not give a use to them?

It's along the lines of "Why are we developing a medical treatment around a procedure that we believe should be illegal? Would abortion have to always stay legal simply so there could be these stem cells available?"

Army of GOD wrote:aborted fetuses aren't the only source of stem cells...

Yep, which is why I strongly support adult stem cell research. I haven't looked up any new advances using those cells for a while though. There are also stem cells present in the placenta and other leftovers from birth, which could be used to essentially store each person's individual embryonic stem cells for use later in their life if necessary.

Woodruff wrote:I'm pretty ignorant on the whole stem cell debate. But when I see things like this, I can't help but wonder why anyone is against it (so can someone educate me?):

The basic problem is that it was done through "fetal spine cord tissue." That throws a whole number of issues on the table. On the one hand, it says "neural stem cells" which might indicate that they are already starting to differentiate and thus not pure "stem" cells. The second is genetic incompatibility, a major problem with all third party stem cell therapies. It might work in genetically similiar mice and rats in sterile lab conditions but not in the generally diverse population of humans. (It would nice if it were otherwise, the whole transplant situation would be turned on its head.) Finally there is the ethical nature of harvesting "fetal spine cord tissue," aside from the general moral prohibitions against abortion in general, there is the equal ethical worry that demand might encourage "fetal farming."

Unless you can transfer this to generic stem cells and then to adult stem cells, this might hit a ethical roadblock or two in transferring the idea to humans.

tzor wrote: there is the equal ethical worry that demand might encourage "fetal farming."

I would hope, regardless of a person's feelings in general about abortion, most people would be against such a thing.

I suppose it would be one thing to get an abortion for socio-economic, financial or health reasons, it would be quite another to get pregnant and abort for the sole purpose to sell the fetus, rinse and repeat.

I dunno, maybe. I wouldn't like to see any such thing as fetal farming, that's for sure. That would be a Dystopian nightmare.

not a fan of A Modest Proposal then?

Aren't they able to create embryo farms?

I seem to recall reading that they can cultivate the cells from populating cultures.

Night Strike wrote:Because of the bolded portion:

Neural stem cells, derived from aborted fetal spinal cord tissue, were implanted onto

I thought they found they could use stem cells found in embryonic fluid?

Idk, I heard that awhile ago.

-Sully

Night Strike wrote:Because of the bolded portion:

Neural stem cells, derived from aborted fetal spinal cord tissue, were implanted onto

That's not an explanation for being against it. In fact, it seems to me to be a factor IN FAVOR of it. I mean...if an abortion is going to happen anyway, why wouldn't we want to make good use of that unfortunate circumstance?

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I'm pretty ignorant on the whole stem cell debate. But when I see things like this, I can't help but wonder why anyone is against it (so can someone educate me?):

The basic problem is that it was done through "fetal spine cord tissue." That throws a whole number of issues on the table. On the one hand, it says "neural stem cells" which might indicate that they are already starting to differentiate and thus not pure "stem" cells.

Ok, but I don't necessarily see a problem there. Why is that an issue?

tzor wrote:The second is genetic incompatibility, a major problem with all third party stem cell therapies. It might work in genetically similiar mice and rats in sterile lab conditions but not in the generally diverse population of humans. (It would nice if it were otherwise, the whole transplant situation would be turned on its head.)

I definitely don't know enough about genetics to really weigh in on this one, but I think I at least understand what you're saying. As I understand the research, it isn't saying (yet) that it's found a cure, simply that it's starting to look like a positive possibility.

tzor wrote:Finally there is the ethical nature of harvesting "fetal spine cord tissue," aside from the general moral prohibitions against abortion in general, there is the equal ethical worry that demand might encourage "fetal farming."

I can understand that last part (the worry about the encouragement), and I think that's definitely a valid concern. I don't personally have much concern about the first part of it, nor do I agree with it.

patches70 wrote:

tzor wrote: there is the equal ethical worry that demand might encourage "fetal farming."

I would hope, regardless of a person's feelings in general about abortion, most people would be against such a thing.

I suppose it would be one thing to get an abortion for socio-economic, financial or health reasons, it would be quite another to get pregnant and abort for the sole purpose to sell the fetus, rinse and repeat.

I dunno, maybe. I wouldn't like to see any such thing as fetal farming, that's for sure. That would be a Dystopian nightmare.

Agreed. I do think it's a possibility, albeit an unlikely one...but we have seen instances of doctors who aren't particularly concerned about the ethics of their positions, so it's at least a reasonable concern.

Next question (again, I'm ignorant here)...why are they using fetal stem cells rather than adult stem cells? Is there something inherent about the fetal stem cells that makes them more appropriate to the research (ignoring ethical/moral concerns)?

Woodruff wrote:Next question (again, I'm ignorant here)...why are they using fetal stem cells rather than adult stem cells? Is there something inherent about the fetal stem cells that makes them more appropriate to the research (ignoring ethical/moral concerns)?

from what I understand they are more readily adaptable to any given situation. you can think of them as more primal stem cells, capable of becoming ANY type of tissue, whereas adult stem cells have already specialized into a specific tissue type

While I believe most people have Nightstrike's problem.. they think that this essentially encourages abortion, or is just morally wrong. (some, not all, of these people are against using adult donor tissues as well).


However, there are biologic reasons to want extreme caution, if not an outright ban. The potential here for harm is at least equal to the potential for good. Its not just the "creating monster" or "super human" type sci-fi type nightmare scenarios (and even if those are remotely possible, should the technology fall into the wrong hands, would curtailing research really do anything to prevent them from doing it -- with even fewer controls, even?). There is also the danger of retro-viruses, misguided attempts at "improving" the gene pool, with negative results. (the whole GMO for food debate, only with real humans this time).

I am not taking a personal stand on this currently, but those are things I have heard tossed about. I seem to remember NPR/PRI doing segments on this earlier, back when Bush was in office. I don't remember hearing much on it recently.

fadedpsychosis wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Next question (again, I'm ignorant here)...why are they using fetal stem cells rather than adult stem cells? Is there something inherent about the fetal stem cells that makes them more appropriate to the research (ignoring ethical/moral concerns)?

from what I understand they are more readily adaptable to any given situation. you can think of them as more primal stem cells, capable of becoming ANY type of tissue, whereas adult stem cells have already specialized into a specific tissue type

Adult stem cells are already coded to specific "purposes" fetal stem cells are much more "flexible". So, no, adult and fetal cells are not interchangable for many types of research, though there is research that can be done with adult cells.

PLAYER57832 wrote:There is also the danger of retro-viruses, misguided attempts at "improving" the gene pool, with negative results. (the whole GMO for food debate, only with real humans this time).

This is a very interesting point, and one that I find as certainly valid for proceeding very cautiously. As you say, very similar to the grain company work.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Next question (again, I'm ignorant here)...why are they using fetal stem cells rather than adult stem cells? Is there something inherent about the fetal stem cells that makes them more appropriate to the research (ignoring ethical/moral concerns)?

from what I understand they are more readily adaptable to any given situation. you can think of them as more primal stem cells, capable of becoming ANY type of tissue, whereas adult stem cells have already specialized into a specific tissue type

Adult stem cells are already coded to specific "purposes" fetal stem cells are much more "flexible". So, no, adult and fetal cells are not interchangable for many types of research, though there is research that can be done with adult cells.

isn't that what I said? y'know, in english?

PLAYER57832 wrote:While I believe most people have Nightstrike's problem.. they think that this essentially encourages abortion, or is just morally wrong. (some, not all, of these people are against using adult donor tissues as well).


However, there are biologic reasons to want extreme caution, if not an outright ban. The potential here for harm is at least equal to the potential for good. Its not just the "creating monster" or "super human" type sci-fi type nightmare scenarios (and even if those are remotely possible, should the technology fall into the wrong hands, would curtailing research really do anything to prevent them from doing it -- with even fewer controls, even?). There is also the danger of retro-viruses, misguided attempts at "improving" the gene pool, with negative results. (the whole GMO for food debate, only with real humans this time).

I am not taking a personal stand on this currently, but those are things I have heard tossed about. I seem to remember NPR/PRI doing segments on this earlier, back when Bush was in office. I don't remember hearing much on it recently.

there's a VERY big difference between genetic modification and using stem cells. they are not at all the same topic, and should not be treated as such. personally I have no stance on either subject (I'd be quite the hypocrite wouldn't I?)

fadedpsychosis wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Next question (again, I'm ignorant here)...why are they using fetal stem cells rather than adult stem cells? Is there something inherent about the fetal stem cells that makes them more appropriate to the research (ignoring ethical/moral concerns)?

from what I understand they are more readily adaptable to any given situation. you can think of them as more primal stem cells, capable of becoming ANY type of tissue, whereas adult stem cells have already specialized into a specific tissue type

Adult stem cells are already coded to specific "purposes" fetal stem cells are much more "flexible". So, no, adult and fetal cells are not interchangable for many types of research, though there is research that can be done with adult cells.

isn't that what I said? y'know, in english?

oops, red too quickly... missed that you had already answered.

fadedpsychosis wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:While I believe most people have Nightstrike's problem.. they think that this essentially encourages abortion, or is just morally wrong. (some, not all, of these people are against using adult donor tissues as well).


However, there are biologic reasons to want extreme caution, if not an outright ban. The potential here for harm is at least equal to the potential for good. Its not just the "creating monster" or "super human" type sci-fi type nightmare scenarios (and even if those are remotely possible, should the technology fall into the wrong hands, would curtailing research really do anything to prevent them from doing it -- with even fewer controls, even?). There is also the danger of retro-viruses, misguided attempts at "improving" the gene pool, with negative results. (the whole GMO for food debate, only with real humans this time).

I am not taking a personal stand on this currently, but those are things I have heard tossed about. I seem to remember NPR/PRI doing segments on this earlier, back when Bush was in office. I don't remember hearing much on it recently.

there's a VERY big difference between genetic modification and using stem cells. they are not at all the same topic, and should not be treated as such. personally I have no stance on either subject (I'd be quite the hypocrite wouldn't I?)

Actually, no. They are very much related, at least in reference to the issues I brought up -- both retroviruses and creating "strangeness". However, I am not saying these are necessarily reasons to "just say no". Rather, they are things that have to be considered.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:While I believe most people have Nightstrike's problem.. they think that this essentially encourages abortion, or is just morally wrong. (some, not all, of these people are against using adult donor tissues as well).

However, there are biologic reasons to want extreme caution, if not an outright ban. The potential here for harm is at least equal to the potential for good. Its not just the "creating monster" or "super human" type sci-fi type nightmare scenarios (and even if those are remotely possible, should the technology fall into the wrong hands, would curtailing research really do anything to prevent them from doing it -- with even fewer controls, even?). There is also the danger of retro-viruses, misguided attempts at "improving" the gene pool, with negative results. (the whole GMO for food debate, only with real humans this time).

I am not taking a personal stand on this currently, but those are things I have heard tossed about. I seem to remember NPR/PRI doing segments on this earlier, back when Bush was in office. I don't remember hearing much on it recently.

there's a VERY big difference between genetic modification and using stem cells. they are not at all the same topic, and should not be treated as such. personally I have no stance on either subject (I'd be quite the hypocrite wouldn't I?)

Actually, no. They are very much related, at least in reference to the issues I brought up -- both retroviruses and creating "strangeness". However, I am not saying these are necessarily reasons to "just say no". Rather, they are things that have to be considered.

eeeh, yes and no. stem cells, of any kind, aren't going to create anything that wasn't already in the body to begin with, genetic manipulation certainly does... but from a pure biological perspective, yes it is modification... but then how is that different from artificial protein creation, which from what I recall uses RNA in the task? I'd have to brush up, I haven't taken a full biochemistry course, and haven't taken either a bio or regular chemistry course in a LONG time... most of what I know comes from various articles I read

Woodruff wrote:Ok, but I don't necessarily see a problem there. Why is that an issue?

There are many sources of potential stem cells. They include various locations in the adult human body as well as in portions of the human body discarded at brth (umbilical cord). Cells from a specific location of a developing fetus are specific. Immunity problems are fare more difficult to overcome in this case.

Oh an this thread says "stem cell" research which they are clearly not.