Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant


China

Recommended Posts

Scientists will also be able to study cell lines that are genetically encoded for specific diseases--perhaps one of the most promising near-term uses of embryonic stem cells. (None of the Bush-approved lines have these qualities.) "One of the clear opportunities that has not been available are lines generated from embryos that carry mutations for Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and cystic fibrosis," says Story Landis, director of the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, in Bethesda, MD, and chair of the NIH's Stem Cell Task Force.
reading is fundamental
Yes it is.

This is what I was talking about. You just keep drinking the kool-aid that these folks are pouring down your throat.

Looks to me like its just "perhaps if we had these it might work".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, kindof confused whether or not they will start to use ES cells now

All ES cells have always been availible for research. Just not federal funding.

You always could use some ES cells w/ federal funding. Just ones that had been approved by Bush back in the early 2000's.

It is likely that Obama will lift the ban more fully if he hasn't already.

I personally think it is a bit odd because in fact we now have the ability to take non-stem cells from any person (and therefore containing any mutation for any disease) and convert them into cells that appear by several measures to be IDENTICAL to ES cells.

This approach beyond the ethical concerns also has the bonus of tissue/cell rejection shouldn't be an issue because they will be identical to the patient.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101180.html

It seems reasonable that it might make sense to have some further stem cell studies to compare these produced cells to real ES cells to make sure they are identical under a large number of conditions, but it doesn't seem at all worthwhile going forward w/ pure ES research if there is any moral concern (and I think essentially every bioethicist that has looked at the issue has said there is SOME concern), but I doubt politically that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All ES cells have always been availible for research. Just not federal funding.

You always could use some ES cells w/ federal funding. Just ones that had been approved by Bush back in the early 2000's.

It is likely that Obama will lift the ban more fully if he hasn't already.

I personally think it is a bit odd because in fact we now have the ability to take non-stem cells from any person (and therefore containing any mutation for any disease) and convert them into cells that appear by several measures to be IDENTICAL to ES cells.

This approach beyond the ethical concerns also has the bonus of tissue/cell rejection shouldn't be an issue because they will be identical to the patient.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101180.html

It seems reasonable that it might make sense to have some further stem cell studies to compare these produced cells to real ES cells to make sure they are identical under a large number of conditions, but it doesn't seem at all worthwhile going forward w/ pure ES research if there is any moral concern (and I think essentially every bioethicist that has looked at the issue has said there is SOME concern), but I doubt politically that matters.

Thank you for a reasonable post on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems reasonable that it might make sense to have some further stem cell studies to compare these produced cells to real ES cells to make sure they are identical under a large number of conditions, but it doesn't seem at all worthwhile going forward w/ pure ES research if there is any moral concern (and I think essentially every bioethicist that has looked at the issue has said there is SOME concern), but I doubt politically that matters.

This hits at what I was getting at earlier...the idea that there are no ethical concerns except in the mind of religious zealots is a bit naive. It's just as naive as saying that there is no benefit to pursuing ES cell research because all other stem cell research will eventually render ES cells unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hits at what I was getting at earlier...the idea that there are no ethical concerns except in the mind of religious zealots is a bit naive. It's just as naive as saying that there is no benefit to pursuing ES cell research because all other stem cell research will eventually render ES cells unnecessary.

bioethics and religion are and should be two separate institutions. you can prattle on about your faith based destiny of a single cell's theoretical potential as a life form.

but that is not what bioethical concerns they are referring. so continue to backtrack and squeeze your round argument into a square hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hits at what I was getting at earlier...the idea that there are no ethical concerns except in the mind of religious zealots is a bit naive. It's just as naive as saying that there is no benefit to pursuing ES cell research because all other stem cell research will eventually render ES cells unnecessary.
Exactly.

Personally, I am against ESC research primarily on moral and religious grounds. But I realize that others don't agree with me.

All I ask folks is to thoroughly do their homework and weigh the pros and cons of ESC's, compared to adult stem cells, when deciding whether to support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bioethics and religion are and should be two separate institutions. you can prattle on about your faith based destiny of a single cell's theoretical potential as a life form.

but that is not what bioethical concerns they are referring. so continue to backtrack and squeeze your round argument into a square hole.

you are asking for someone who is religious to not think of human life in a religious way. thats impossible...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bioethics and religion are and should be two separate institutions. you can prattle on about your faith based destiny of a single cell's theoretical potential as a life form.

but that is not what bioethical concerns they are referring. so continue to backtrack and squeeze your round argument into a square hole.

In no way did I say the bioethical concerns are the same concerns as the religious ones. If you actually read the lines I write instead of constantly trying to read between them you would have realized that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no ban on research.

The gov't just says it won't fund it. I mean, think about it, look how much conflict arises over the gov't funding abortion providers. Do you really want the gov't involved in another moral conflict the likes of abortion?

One that can potentially cure AIDS and cancer? Yes, i would like that. Sooner rather than later, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Personally, I am against ESC research primarily on moral and religious grounds. But I realize that others don't agree with me.

All I ask folks is to thoroughly do their homework and weigh the pros and cons of ESC's, compared to adult stem cells, when deciding whether to support them.

There are a whole range of issues to be considered when considering ES cell research...only the most shortsighted of us will assume there isn't. And yeah, people on both sides need to do FAR more homework on the subject. Hell, I asked a simple question in this thread and was ridiculed for doing so lol :)...that pretty much shows how little "homework" people tend to think is really needed on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. There are a ton of philosophies out there that go into the value and realities of human life. That's not the arena of religions alone. Expand your thinking...

that argument is a pure paradox. and only functions on one level. religion.

otherwise, you can make the argument that the destroyed cell gives life to the cell behind it. you're putting the rights of one cell over the rights of another to live.

its a stupid asinine argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...