Stem Cell Research

[fadedpsychosis]

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.

wait, what? are you and I reading the same article? the article I'm reading is talking about stem cells. what are you reading?

[Woodruff]

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.

I'm not sure where the "immunity problems" that you're referring to come in.

Also, they're not coming from a "developing fetus", they're coming from an "aborted fetus".

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

Stem cells are not stem cells? I don't think I follow you.

[patrickaa317]

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.

I'm not sure where the "immunity problems" that you're referring to come in.

Also, they're not coming from a "developing fetus", they're coming from an "aborted fetus".

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

Stem cells are not stem cells? I don't think I follow you.

My understanding is that they are coming from an aborted fetus where the primary reason for existing was simply to be aborted (creating life for the simple fact of aborting it). The stem cell researchers don't sit inside planned parenthood clinics grabbing the stem cells from soon to be aborted babies they would create them in a test lab by the hundreds/thousands. Much less personal and more efficient, though still viewed as immorally wrong.

Now my question, if the above is correct, where would people stand on doing this to animal fetuses? Whether it be mice, chimps, etc. Is it immoral to replicate this using animal life? Is it unethical to use animal cells within a human?

[PLAYER57832]

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

Look up retroviruses. Also, because stem cells are more fundamentally flexible, there is more potential for variations.. including ones we don't want.

And recombinant DNA is different in that it targets specific pieces of already determined and identified genes.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

I'm not sure where the "immunity problems" that you're referring to come in.

Also, they're not coming from a "developing fetus", they're coming from an "aborted fetus".

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

Stem cells are not stem cells? I don't think I follow you.

My understanding is that they are coming from an aborted fetus where the primary reason for existing was simply to be aborted (creating life for the simple fact of aborting it). The stem cell researchers don't sit inside planned parenthood clinics grabbing the stem cells from soon to be aborted babies they would create them in a test lab by the hundreds/thousands. Much less personal and more efficient, though still viewed as immorally wrong.

No, that's not actually correct. Or, at least its not entirely correct. I REALLY don't want this to spin off into yet another abortion thread, but you should be able to find the real details by googling. What you describe is what the right wing wants to put forward.

[fadedpsychosis]

Look up retroviruses. Also, because stem cells are more fundamentally flexible, there is more potential for variations.. including ones we don't want.
And recombinant DNA is different in that it targets specific pieces of already determined and identified genes.

I take it you're referring to endogenous retroviruses? yeah, I was getting WAY over my head getting into the technical specifics in that one... I'll just say that either way can be potentially dangerous.
As far as stem cells being flexible: yes, they can indeed become something you don't want: in fact they could easily become cancerous (all cancer is is a cell that continues to replicate in an uncontrolled or undesired manner). You could end up with all kinds of stuff in places you don't want (I read about a tumor that had teeth in it for example) but I have a hard time seeing how stem cells would be capable of, as you put it "misguided attempts at "improving" the gene pool, with negative results" unless you're talking about accidental exposure to a retrovirus already present in the host causing problems? as far as accidental results due to other factors, the technology itself hasn't progressed far enough in my opinion to worry about that on a widespread field... and believe me when I say the researchers working on this stuff have a much better idea of the possible repercussions than either of us, and unless they're complete fools would take certain precautions (say for example patient screening, blood and tissue samples, etc) before doing anything even on a test subject.
Now, I'm not saying researchers are perfect, or even always honest, safe, etc. I am saying that everyone looks out for themselves, and if there's a potential for danger to themselves, they'll do what they can to mitigate that risk. This in turn helps protect the rest of us.

back to stem cells v. retrovirus. Stem cells, while malleable, especially embryonic stem cells, still contain set DNA. Retroviruses use their RNA to modify a host's DNA. Unless you're using both in conjunction (which I REALLY don't think is a wise move all things considered) I don't see how you're coming to the conclusions you're reaching. They are different things, with different processes. Both have potential hazards yes, but you're not going to get super-humans or things like that using stem cells... in fact, the best you can really get out of them is repairing or replacing damaged tissue. The worst? Teeth in your side? *shudder* Now yes, a stem cell research does include removing DNA from a stem cell and replacing it with the host's own DNA, which also has potential problems... but not all of it, and I don't think that's what's happening here.

[tzor]

Also, they're not coming from a "developing fetus", they're coming from an "aborted fetus".

Well technically a fetus is "developing" until the moment it has been aborted and technically continues to develop, although this action is at that point moot. (Because if the cells were dead at that point they would be useless.)

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

Stem cells are not stem cells? I don't think I follow you.

Neural stem cells (NSCs) are self-renewing, multipotent cells that generate the main phenotypes of the nervous system. Stem cells are characterized by their capability to differentiate into multiple cell types via exogenous stimuli from their environment. They undergo symmetric cell division into two daughter cells, one non-specialized and one specialized. NSCs primarily differentiate into neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes.

The main distinction between stem cells is that one is an adult stem cell which is limited in its ability to differentiate and one is an embryonic stem cell (ESC) that is pluripotent. ESCs are not limited to a particular cell fate; rather they have the capability to differentiate into any cell type. ESCs are derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst with the potential to self-replicate.

Thus if you talk about "stem cells" from a fetus, most people assume ESC, while these are in fact non pluripotent. These cells have one primary purpose, to turn into neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes.

[Woodruff]

My understanding is that they are coming from an aborted fetus where the primary reason for existing was simply to be aborted (creating life for the simple fact of aborting it).

Ok, IF this is the case, then I would agree that there is a problem with it.

Now my question, if the above is correct, where would people stand on doing this to animal fetuses? Whether it be mice, chimps, etc. Is it immoral to replicate this using animal life? Is it unethical to use animal cells within a human?

I don't know if I would consider it an immoral/unethical thing, but it seems to my pretty limited ignorance that you might introduce some pretty serious medical problems by doing so.

[Woodruff]

Also, they're not coming from a "developing fetus", they're coming from an "aborted fetus".

Well technically a fetus is "developing" until the moment it has been aborted and technically continues to develop, although this action is at that point moot. (Because if the cells were dead at that point they would be useless.)

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

Stem cells are not stem cells? I don't think I follow you.

Neural stem cells (NSCs) are self-renewing, multipotent cells that generate the main phenotypes of the nervous system. Stem cells are characterized by their capability to differentiate into multiple cell types via exogenous stimuli from their environment. They undergo symmetric cell division into two daughter cells, one non-specialized and one specialized. NSCs primarily differentiate into neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes.

The main distinction between stem cells is that one is an adult stem cell which is limited in its ability to differentiate and one is an embryonic stem cell (ESC) that is pluripotent. ESCs are not limited to a particular cell fate; rather they have the capability to differentiate into any cell type. ESCs are derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst with the potential to self-replicate.

Thus if you talk about "stem cells" from a fetus, most people assume ESC, while these are in fact non pluripotent. These cells have one primary purpose, to turn into neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes.

My head is starting to hurt.

(Good info though.)

[patrickaa317]

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.

I'm not sure where the "immunity problems" that you're referring to come in.

Also, they're not coming from a "developing fetus", they're coming from an "aborted fetus".

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

Stem cells are not stem cells? I don't think I follow you.

My understanding is that they are coming from an aborted fetus where the primary reason for existing was simply to be aborted (creating life for the simple fact of aborting it). The stem cell researchers don't sit inside planned parenthood clinics grabbing the stem cells from soon to be aborted babies they would create them in a test lab by the hundreds/thousands. Much less personal and more efficient, though still viewed as immorally wrong.

No, that's not actually correct. Or, at least its not entirely correct. I REALLY don't want this to spin off into yet another abortion thread, but you should be able to find the real details by googling. What you describe is what the right wing wants to put forward.

Ok, where do the embryonic stem cells come from if not recently from embryos that have went through conception? If you don't believe life begins at conception, then it is a different ball game as that is your belief; neither is necessarily right nor wrong, as they both have valid arguments for and against them.

[PLAYER57832]

Look up retroviruses. Also, because stem cells are more fundamentally flexible, there is more potential for variations.. including ones we don't want.
And recombinant DNA is different in that it targets specific pieces of already determined and identified genes.

I take it you're referring to endogenous retroviruses? yeah, I was getting WAY over my head getting into the technical specifics in that one... I'll just say that either way can be potentially dangerous.

Just talking generaly about the fact that viruses can be carried by already formed human beings.. but also those not yet formed,a nd thus these things can be passed on. Also, the mere existance of these is a fairly recent discovery. (a fwe decades). So... we probably don't know enough to understand the problem, never mind fixes and ways we need to monitor them.

Per the rest.. I don't have time to get into details on genetic research right now. My comment was just that you had not taken all the problems into consideration... and what disturbs me is that even after I showed you you did not know as much as you thought, you STILL want to insist you know enough to declare that there is no connection. If you don't have time or the technical ability to understand retroviruses, other issues.. fine. Just don't then go and start claiming you know enough to make decisions on these things.

[fadedpsychosis]

Look up retroviruses. Also, because stem cells are more fundamentally flexible, there is more potential for variations.. including ones we don't want.
And recombinant DNA is different in that it targets specific pieces of already determined and identified genes.

I take it you're referring to endogenous retroviruses? yeah, I was getting WAY over my head getting into the technical specifics in that one... I'll just say that either way can be potentially dangerous.

Just talking generaly about the fact that viruses can be carried by already formed human beings.. but also those not yet formed,a nd thus these things can be passed on. Also, the mere existance of these is a fairly recent discovery. (a fwe decades). So... we probably don't know enough to understand the problem, never mind fixes and ways we need to monitor them.

Per the rest.. I don't have time to get into details on genetic research right now. My comment was just that you had not taken all the problems into consideration... and what disturbs me is that even after I showed you you did not know as much as you thought, you STILL want to insist you know enough to declare that there is no connection. If you don't have time or the technical ability to understand retroviruses, other issues.. fine. Just don't then go and start claiming you know enough to make decisions on these things.

attacks on my person aside...

did you even read what I said? let me put it in simpler terms

rertovirus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus
stem cell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

not the same thing. that's all I've been saying. if you know better, show me. put up or shut up.

[2dimes]

My understanding is that they are coming from an aborted fetus where the primary reason for existing was simply to be aborted (creating life for the simple fact of aborting it).

Ok, IF this is the case, then I would agree that there is a problem with it.

I think the concern is it's potential to become sort of an industry like selling your plasma. Desperate poor getting preggers to harvest stem cell rich fetuses in exchange for money.

[Woodruff]

My understanding is that they are coming from an aborted fetus where the primary reason for existing was simply to be aborted (creating life for the simple fact of aborting it).

Ok, IF this is the case, then I would agree that there is a problem with it.

I think the concern is it's potential to become sort of an industry like selling your plasma. Desperate poor getting preggers to harvest stem cell rich fetuses in exchange for money.

And I do see that as a legitimate area of concern. But that concern can keep it from happening, even while allowing the fetal stem cells to be available for research.

[2dimes]

I'm not concerned personally. I am very pro life but also pro choice. If anyone wants to get pregnant just to harvest stem cells I believe it's unethical but have at it.

Having said that. If I were interested in imposing my idea that a fertilized egg is some form of being that should be allowed to live. If there is stem cell harvesting. How do you prevent it from becoming abused for money? Someone will do it.

In the big picture someone might be doing it else where right now. The only difference being if it's allowed in north America the quantity will increase substantially and the benefits/problems will be incurred by us.

[PLAYER57832]

Look up retroviruses. Also, because stem cells are more fundamentally flexible, there is more potential for variations.. including ones we don't want.
And recombinant DNA is different in that it targets specific pieces of already determined and identified genes.

I take it you're referring to endogenous retroviruses? yeah, I was getting WAY over my head getting into the technical specifics in that one... I'll just say that either way can be potentially dangerous.

Just talking generaly about the fact that viruses can be carried by already formed human beings.. but also those not yet formed,a nd thus these things can be passed on. Also, the mere existance of these is a fairly recent discovery. (a fwe decades). So... we probably don't know enough to understand the problem, never mind fixes and ways we need to monitor them.

Per the rest.. I don't have time to get into details on genetic research right now. My comment was just that you had not taken all the problems into consideration... and what disturbs me is that even after I showed you you did not know as much as you thought, you STILL want to insist you know enough to declare that there is no connection. If you don't have time or the technical ability to understand retroviruses, other issues.. fine. Just don't then go and start claiming you know enough to make decisions on these things.

attacks on my person aside...

did you even read what I said? let me put it in simpler terms

rertovirus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus
stem cell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

not the same thing. that's all I've been saying. if you know better, show me. put up or shut up.

I already did. You declared it was "way over my head". Thus, my comment was not a personal attack, it was saying "fine.. but don't say you cannot understand and then proceed to lecture me or anyone else on this."

Beyond that, I told you to do the research. You just said it was too technical. So...

[PLAYER57832]

My understanding is that they are coming from an aborted fetus where the primary reason for existing was simply to be aborted (creating life for the simple fact of aborting it).

Ok, IF this is the case, then I would agree that there is a problem with it.

I think the concern is it's potential to become sort of an industry like selling your plasma. Desperate poor getting preggers to harvest stem cell rich fetuses in exchange for money.

And I do see that as a legitimate area of concern. But that concern can keep it from happening, even while allowing the fetal stem cells to be available for research.

Most people see this as a problem.