If this is true, then it is appalling not to acquire them from these other sources.
Emma_85 wrote:Oh, I thought Bush was going to ban it.
NewScientistOther scientists are focusing their efforts on embryonic stem cells, as they believe only these are versatile enough to give rise to all the tissues of the body. By using the right growth factors, it seems possible to nudge embryonic stem cells down different pathways to become any tissue type at all. The stem cells come either from spare embryos left over from infertility treatments, or in some cases from deliberately created ones.
[...]
But any research involving embryos is massively controversial, whether they are deliberately created ones, IVF spares, or clones. The issue is centre-stage in the US general election, with right-wing anti-abortion groups firmly against any research involving embryonic stem cells (see US election special, this issue).
sciamFor some envisioned therapies, it might nonetheless be useful to briegly create an embryonic clone of an adult for the purpose of extracting stem cells.
NewScientist[...] ES Cell International was another obvious choice for Biopolis. Along with cancer and infectious disease studies, embryonic (and adult) stem cell research is a must-have for the BMRC. Alan Colman, chief scientific officer at ES Cell International and a co-creator of Dolly the sheep, came to Singapore in 2002 in large part because the government was willing to invest in the company. "There was finance available here which was quite frankly impossible to get elsewhere," he says.
Singapore also has a solid history of breakthrough stem cell work. In 1994, for instance, a group led by Ariff Bongso of the state's National University Hospital was the first to successfully isolate embryonic stem cells, and Patrick Tan of the Singapore General Hospital has pioneered transplants of blood-forming stem cells from bone marrow to treat diseases such as aplastic anaemia.
And as well as actively encouraging stem cell research, Singapore is "permissive" compared with countries such as the US. Legislation very similar to that in the UK, which allows stem cells to be extracted from cloned embryos up to 14 days old, was passed by parliament on 2 September. Though until then, says Colman, "people assumed that these rules and regulations were already in existence". He hopes that within a year his team will be able to cure diabetic animals using stem cells that develop into insulin-producing islet cells. And for basic research to support this work, Colman can call not only on his own team but on publicly funded researchers. A fifth of Colman's salary is paid by the new Centre for Molecular Medicine, set up to translate research into treatments. [...]
Unlike the vast majority of cells in the body, which are "specialised" as neurons, muscle or bone, say, stem cells are blank slates that can develop into many different tissue types and renew themselves indefinitely.
The early embryo consists of a ball of stem cells. As these multiply, increasing numbers specialise or "differentiate" into various tissues to form the developing organs, although a small number remain in the body as semi-specialised stem cells, even into adulthood. Bone marrow is a rich source of adult stem cells that produce blood cells, as these need to be constantly replenished throughout life. And various other tissues such as muscle and brain seem to have small numbers of adult stem cells with limited repair capacity.
EmptyMan wrote:We have the same 2 choices on abortion, do we turn a blind eye to murder(def. of murder is killing a human and a fetus is at all points of devel. a human)and harvest their organs for our benefit, or we can do the right thing, if you consider it right not to kill humans, and try to stop the killing.
The argument most people use for fetus-harvesting(litteral term for "stem-cell" research)) is that the kid is going to die anyway why not use his stem-cells
I understand that some Christians believe that yes, IVF, abortions and stem-cell research must all be banned.
But don’t you think it’s strange that there is all this commotion about stem-cell research, when IVF kills much more embryos? Or is there is fact a huge lobby to ban IVF in the US too and I just haven’t heard of it before? Just wondering why it is that IVF is allowed and not banned but stem-cell research so criticized.
Rhuiden wrote:The question about whether or not US citizens should use the cure (if one was to be found) discovered from stem cell research in another country presents an interesting ethical dilema. I will have to think on this a bit before answering.
NewScientistSTEM cells have a higher profile during the 2004 presidential campaign than any other scientific issue. And Americans have a clear choice. Vote Bush, and his policy of restricting federal research into embryonic stem cells will continue. Vote Kerry and such fetters will be removed.
[...]
But critics say Bush's stance has little to do with morality. "Believe me, the political operatives in the White House are not sitting around talking about the morality of this," Ron Reagan, son of former president Ronald Reagan, told New Scientist. "They are talking about the political math. And that is just offensive."
[...]
Democratic congressman Brian Baird says that Bush's policy is morally inconsistent, particularly the stipulation that embryonic cell lines created before August 2001 can be used in federal research, but not those created after. "It's absolutely a sell-out," he says. "It's not about science. It's not about truly valuing human life. It's about sucking up, frankly, to a political lobby group."
Another apparent inconsistency is the lack of restrictions on researchers working in the private sector. True, this reflects historical precedent, as private research is not traditionally seen as an area for federal regulation. But Democratic congressman Henry Waxman says that Bush has been trying to have it both ways. "He claims to have an important principled position in the policy on federal research while his administration boasts about the amount of private research."
We have the same 2 choices on abortion, do we turn a blind eye to murder(def. of murder is killing a human and a fetus is at all points of devel. a human)and harvest their organs for our benefit, or we can do the right thing, if you consider it right not to kill humans, and try to stop the killing.
But it's not about using the stem-cells of aborted embryos, but of those from IVF treatment. Many couples undergo fertility treatment and many embryos must be fertilised it seems, but they only use about 2 or 3 I think, the rest either get destroyed or used for research.
You're against abortion, are you against IVF too? You didn't say.
EmptyMan wrote:Why do people single out Christians as if only they oppose abortions? Abortion has nothing to do with religion. Atheists and Christians oppose abortion.
The arguments coming from the abortion people are really lame:
1. Fetus is not human.
2. fetus is not alive.
No it is not strange for people to be outraged about someone killing a child and then harvesting his organs for stem-cells. Letting someone kill your neighbor is bad, but letting someone kill your neighbor and then stealing from their home is even worse.
EmptyMan wrote:Yes I am opposed to IVF. I beleive it is dangerous to have conception in a lab, we should not be playing around with people like this. Who knows the dangers of genitic and gender engineering? No one. So I will not get up in line and encourage research that could lead to huge problems once the child is born nor will I support constant creation of humans only to get stem-cells.
NewScientistARE the millions of children conceived by the fertility treatments IVF and ICSI as healthy as those conceived the old-fashioned way? Apart from the increased chance of multiple births and all the associated health risks, the answer seems to be mostly yes, according to the largest review yet.
EmptyMan wrote:Why do people single out Christians as if only they oppose abortions?
EmptyMan wrote:Abortion has nothing to do with religion. Atheists and Christians oppose abortion.
classicalclarinet wrote:wow. 3 billion. with that you could literally buy a small country.
Is this question a heated debate in Germany or the UK? How much of a political issue is it over there? Is anyone trying to prevent this research over there?
But Emma, you understand, for pro-life Christians, this idea is a dogma. They consider it to be received wisdom from God. Life begins at conception, period, end of story.
Is this question a heated debate in Germany or the UK? How much of a political issue is it over there? Is anyone trying to prevent this research over there?
2) Even among "supporters" of abortion, and I use that word advisedly, there is less militant rhetoric. No mainstream UK politician, so far as I am aware, believes that an abortion is a woman's absolute right, able to be exercised in all circumstances. Perhaps the presence of an evangelical christian movement dedicated to banning abortion completely has galvanised the troops somewhat. Or it could be that well-known tendency in UK politics to reduce matters of principle to technocratic discussions.
EmptyMan wrote:I think it's a little unfair to say that Christians believe their ideas on abortion is wisdom from God. Yes, this is what I would call dogma but fortunately it is scientifically justifiable to say the single-celled embryos are human and as I have said earlier it's argumental suicide to say that life does not begin at conception. A life begins at conceptiopn, no doubt, but what you do with that life depends on how much you value it.
Turpissimus, you're absolutely right. In Germany the laws on abortion are thougher than in the US, just as regulations on stem-cells are more restrictive in both German and the UK and it's probably because the debates here are more rational as you don't have the 'radical' interests groups that you find in the US. Abortions are allowed in Germany for example, but just as with this ethics commission to check every case on embryonic stem-cell imports, you need to have an ethic-panel to decide on every single abortion (loads of forms, you need doctors and ethics advisors to consent and all that sort of thing, you need to go on a family planning course and all that (free of course, as is all health care) and it's only allowed up until a certain date in the pregnancy very early on, after that all abortions are illegal. There are no abortion clinic or anything like that in Germany either.
Most American people would support some bans on Abortion but the liberal trial lawyers, the ACLU, and others like Hilary Clinton won't let it happen.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests