stem cell research

[ada]

What do you think about stem cell research? Is it the future or should it be banned?

What are the ethics of extracting cells from a human embryo to save human life? What are the ethics of creating an embryo so you can harvest its cells?

What do the Americans think about Bush's decision to veto federal funding for this kind of research? Do you support him?

Interested to hear your views.

[prometheus]

The majority of the americans support stem cell research. Political analysts suspect that Bush will cause the republicans to lose votes because the majority of the republicans also support stem cell research.

Political analysts also think the senate will not vote 2/3 against Bushes veto which was spoken against the senate.


I do not think there are any ethics involved with this issue. At least not in the way as with abortion and euthanasia. You either destroy these lumbs of cells or you use them for research.

Religious dogma claims that these embryos have been given a soul by god and are thus fully human. But of course this has been fond to be non-sense. And that is irrelevant to these people since religious dogma doesn't require evidence or analysis. It just is.

Also, I find it strange that embryos can be destroyed after a female manages to get pregnant and doesn't need the others but that they can't be used for research. If you think these lumbs of cells are fully human you should vote against both. But since the one is legal and the other is not it seems some people aren't being consistent.

[ada]

presumably you're talking about excess IVF embryos, and I agree with you on that as I do with most things.

But what about cloning an embryo so it can be used as a source of stem cells? That's a bit stickier, although personally I also support this.

[prometheus]

Well, isn't that the stem cell usage that was proposed? I mean, cloning embryos for more stem cells hasn't been an issue at all, or has it? Since this is a 100% US domestic issue I know very little about the nature of the debate. Maybe this is a scare tactic of the opponents of stem cell research, claiming this opens the way to cloning of embryos for more cells? The famous slippery slope fallacy. (Well, actually it isn't a fallacy per definition)

[ada]

In Australia scientists are currently allowed to conduct research on left over embryos created during IVF which would otherwise remain on ice and then be flushed down the sink after a set period of time.

The debate is now centred on the therapeutic cloning issue, ie, the creation of embryos for stem cells.

I'm not sure of the exact situation in the US, (maybe someone from there can help us out?) .

[prometheus]

Is that technologically possible?

As far as I know most countries now have laws in place outlawing cloning of human species. And that is what one would do. I mean, a embryo in a very early stage may not be more than a lumb of cells, it is an individual lumb of cells that belongs to the human species. Now, if it is alive or not no one knows because no one knows what requirements something must meet in order to be alive.


I don't know how much supply and demand there is. But this is just for research. If it is going to use for treatment on a regular basis one needs a lot more stem cells. I know that they usually use someones own stem cells, removed from the Bone marrow from the femur or the tibia. But it would be more practical to take someones DNA and use the blue-print to grow the cells directly. I guess the easy way it to do it using the process natura has already put in place; growing an embryo. But in theory one could also grow stem cells directly. The problem is that in the early stages the result will be identical. Only the goal of the process will be different. It is very curious to see how a court would judge this, because that is what it is about. And if a special law adressing this point is passed when court makes the 'wrong' ruling.

[ada]

Reproductive cloning is banned internationally although the Koreans and the Raelians claim to have done it.

The advantage of using a cloned embryo is that stem cells can be extracted that won't be rejected by a recipient.

So  the idea is that if for example you have a spinal cord injury you clone an embryo of yourself and use those stem cells to regrow the cord.

Because the cloned stem cells contain an exact replica of your DNA your body won't reject them.

This is therapeutic cloning but if you ask me you can't prevent progress (though the creationists will try) and if the technology is there it's going to be used for reproductive cloning.

I predict that reproductive cloning, or cloning to create living human beings, is around the corner.

[gilad]

i think they should be allowed to use embryos that are to be destroyed anyway. i saw michal j fox was real upset about bush's veto, i also think that "god" helps those that help themselves and that the research would benifit human kind. pros cons, i see more more pros.

[piano guy]

     What exactly is so bad about using embryos that are going to be wasted otherwise to save lives? I'd like to hear what Bush would say to that. He'd probably use his tiny half-a-brain to make an irrelevent argument about the "preservation of life" and our "moral boundaries." Which is more moral, in your opinion: To simply waste these "potential lives" or to use them for research that could potentially SAVE lives? Bush uses no reasoning whatsoever. He simply makes up his mind from the beginning, without even knowing the facts, and sticks to it stubbornly, even when he has people a whole lot smarter than he is explaining the situation. Bush vetoed that bill because he doesn't WANT people to be cured through this research. In my opinion, this is his war against scientific research, just because he's too stupid to understand it!! I'm not arguing with anyone here, because people seem to agree about the reasearch itself. I'm just stating my opinions on it, because it makes me very mad to see this idiot making decisions based on faulty reasoning and things he's not capable of understanding! And what gives him the right to make decisions based on his personal belief while in a government office?! This country is based on freedom, and what is he doing? He's taking away people's freedom to be cured from deadly diseases! Bottom line: Stem cell research could save many more lives than those it will "destroy," but Bush is too stubborn and stupid to realize that! Those are my thoughts on stem cell research and the President's veto on what may have been the last hope for some potentially life saving breakthroughs.

[musik_man]

I have to agree with Bush on this one.  It's one thing to allow speculative research that a large chunk of the public has moral doubts to go on, but to fund it is different.  Every penny that the government spends on embryonic stem cell research should go to adult stem cell research.  No difficult moral questions and just as importantly, adult stem cells have shown real world results unlike embryonic.

[ada]

But adult stem cells don't have the same pluropotentiality, or ability to turn into other sorts of cells, as embryonic stem cells.

If adult stem cells don't have the same potential should we waste resources researching them?

[musik_man]

But adult stem cells don't have the same pluropotentiality, or ability to turn into other sorts of cells, as embryonic stem cells.

If adult stem cells don't have the same potential should we waste resources researching them?

Embryonic stem cells have a host of problems that adult stem cells don't have, involving tissue rejection and cancerous growth.  Anyway, the real situation is this, adult stem cells have made near miraculous accomplishments and embryonic stem cells have accomplished nothing.

[prometheus]

I have to agree with Bush on this one.  It's one thing to allow speculative research that a large chunk of the public has moral doubts to go on, but to fund it is different.

So you think that one should support the government, which in this case merely consists of Bush, because one is under the assumption that some part of the public has doubts? Very strange. Even if you meant that a large majority opposes something the government proposes one should be better of making actual arguments. But even this does not apply since you must be talking about a small minority that has doubts which constists mostly of christians that get their opinion from religious dogma produced by barbaric bronze age culture. Using religious dogma is one bad thing. But using one produced by taliban-like people that lived 4000 years ago, during the bronze age is different. Not to mention that his is then applied on the cutting edge of science.

We aren't talking about funding, we are talking about loosening restrictions. The government doesn't dictate what scientists should be researching. If something should be banned then it should be banned. But if it is not then the government has no place directing the direction scientific research. I don't see why politics should control this.

And obviously a majority supports the bill the senate tried to pass. The senate, even the senate supports it. I mean, this shows how much support it actually has. The senate members feel obliged to oppose their president, afraid for the voter. And then Bush veto's it and you claim that is good because of the opinion of the public. Each poll has shown that the majority supports even the funding on the research. They also show a lot of people do not know, 'don't know' scores continually double digits. But then more in depht polling on this has shown that the more the people know of the subject the more supportive they are.

Furtermore, this isn't speculative research. And even if it was, again politicians have no role in determining this. Actually, most of us are totally inept to make any judgement on this. We can't know what this research will bring since it has not even started yet. That's  why it needs to be researched. Of course embryonic stem cells haven't accompliced anything and that is because there hasn't been enough research yet and because of the nature of embryonic stem cells; that what gives them both more future potential also makes them more complex to use since they are more flexible.

 

[musik_man]

So you think that one should support the government, which in this case merely consists of Bush, because one is under the assumption that some part of the public has doubts? Very strange. Even if you meant that a large majority opposes something the government proposes one should be better of making actual arguments. But even this does not apply since you must be talking about a small minority that has doubts which constists mostly of christians that get their opinion from religious dogma produced by barbaric bronze age culture. Using religious dogma is one bad thing. But using one produced by taliban-like people that lived 4000 years ago, during the bronze age is different. Not to mention that his is then applied on the cutting edge of science.

I don't think that someone should support the government because the public has doubts.  I think that the government shouldn't force people to pay for research they find morally offensive.  In all honesty, the government should be funding very little for research for anything.  It's not a proper function.

And if we are to ignore morality that stems from religion, what morality should we make our decisions based upon?  The idea that anyone can rationally prove that embryonic stem cell research is moral or immoral is silly.  Morality is beyond the realm of rational thought.

We aren't talking about funding, we are talking about loosening restrictions. The government doesn't dictate what scientists should be researching. If something should be banned then it should be banned. But if it is not then the government has no place directing the direction scientific research. I don't see why politics should control this.

You're flat out wrong.  We are talking about funding.  The media likes to portray Bush as preventing embryonic stem cell research, but he's only restricted federal funding of it.  The research is still 100% legal for private firms.

Furtermore, this isn't speculative research. And even if it was, again politicians have no role in determining this.

Why shouldn't politicians(representing the public) be in charge of how our tax dollars are spent?  Do you really think that decisions on how our money is spent are too important for us to decide? 

Actually, most of us are totally inept to make any judgement on this. We can't know what this research will bring since it has not even started yet. That's  why it needs to be researched. Of course embryonic stem cells haven't accompliced anything and that is because there hasn't been enough research yet and because of the nature of embryonic stem cells; that what gives them both more future potential also makes them more complex to use since they are more flexible.

I don't see where you're are going with this.  We should put money into an area of research that hasn't accomplished anything, rather than funding research that has.  And we should do this solely on faith that it will give results in the future?

[living_stradivarius]

I don't think that someone should support the government because the public has doubts.  I think that the government shouldn't force people to pay for research they find morally offensive.  In all honesty, the government should be funding very little for research for anything.  It's not a proper function.

And if we are to ignore morality that stems from religion, what morality should we make our decisions based upon?  The idea that anyone can rationally prove that embryonic stem cell research is moral or immoral is silly.  Morality is beyond the realm of rational thought.

You're flat out wrong.  We are talking about funding.  The media likes to portray Bush as preventing embryonic stem cell research, but he's only restricted federal funding of it.  The research is still 100% legal for private firms.

Why shouldn't politicians(representing the public) be in charge of how our tax dollars are spent?  Do you really think that decisions on how our money is spent are too important for us to decide? 

I don't see where you're are going with this.  We should put money into an area of research that hasn't accomplished anything, rather than funding research that has.  And we should do this solely on faith that it will give results in the future?

  PWND. xD


The issue does bring to light an inevitable clash between religion and science, as well as the role of the state in this regard in a future not too long from now.

[thalbergmad]

I wonder when God will say something about this?

[living_stradivarius]

I wonder when God will say something about this?

God will not have anything to say about this. He's an autocrat, remember?
Probably a lot of smiting instead.

[prometheus]

I think that the government shouldn't force people to pay for research they find morally offensive.

The government doesn't force anyone to pay for research. It merely forces you to pay taxes. Also, everything can be found offensive. One does not have the right not to be offended because one offends itself.

In all honesty, the government should be funding very little for research for anything.  It's not a proper function.

Well, this is a totally different issue. It has really little place in this debate. If you want to government not to spend any money on research you shouldn't support Bush when he vetos the senate in removing a law which has nothing to do with research in general.

And if we are to ignore morality that stems from religion, what morality should we make our decisions based upon?

Actual morality. Not dogma morality.

The idea that anyone can rationally prove that embryonic stem cell research is moral or immoral is silly.  Morality is beyond the realm of rational thought.

There is a whole field of people that do this. And this goes back to the first greek philosophers. This is silly. Of course people are going to put reason together with morality. Even Jesus did this.

You're flat out wrong.  We are talking about funding.

Uuuh, we are talking about a special law passed by Clinton that makes it illegal for federal money to be spend on this type of research. It was put there as a restriction. There is no buget involved in the bill the senate tried to pass. So there is no funding involved here.

Why shouldn't politicians be in charge of how our tax dollars are spent?  Do you really think that decisions on how our money is spent are too important for us to decide?

Uuuh? Politicians determine the research buget available for research. I say that one should have the researchers spend this money since they are going to do the actual research. The discussion isn't about creating or removing a buget. It is about restricting the use of the buget that is already available. Furtermore, the senate tried to pass a bill and Bush vetoed it.

I don't see where you're are going with this.  We should put money into an area of research that hasn't accomplished anything, rather than funding research that has.  And we should do this solely on faith that it will give results in the future?

You can't be serious. When no research was done into adult stem cells it had accomplished as little and one needed as much 'faith' in it to give results. Obviously one needs to invent something before it works so research is needed before it is going to have any result.
If someone knows the potential of embryonic stem cells it are the actual researchers, not you, me or Bush.

Grin PWND. xD

Sure...

The issue does bring to light an inevitable clash between religion and science, as well as the role of the state in this regard in a future not too long from now.

Science has already 'won' long ago. At least on the intellectual level. If you mean the shallow rhetorical level, then no. Science will never win there, and it does not care. Religion may want to delude and brainwash people. Science doesn't care for this at all. It will never attempt to do this.

Plus, the state has no role in this at all.

[musik_man]

The government doesn't force anyone to pay for research. It merely forces you to pay taxes. Also, everything can be found offensive. One does not have the right not to be offended because one offends itself.

If the government forces you to pay taxes, and spends that money on research, the government is forcing you to pay for research.  And no, no one has the right not to be offended, but they do have property rights, and shouldn't be forced to pay for things outside of the proper realm of government, especially if they find it morally objectionable.

Actual morality. Not dogma morality.

Where does 'actual morality' stem from?  I get the feeling that you are using it to refer to whatever particular morals you have.  And what is 'dogmatic morality'?  Taken literally, it would refer to any objective morality. 

There is a whole field of people that do this. And this goes back to the first greek philosophers. This is silly. Of course people are going to put reason together with morality. Even Jesus did this.

You're wrong.  People can take some fundamental beliefs that they hold and extrapolate those ideas to apply to specific scenarios, but the fundamental beliefs themselves can never be rationally proven.  Prove in an objective manner  that murder is wrong, or that child molestation is wrong.  You can't.  No one can.

Uuuh, we are talking about a special law passed by Clinton that makes it illegal for federal money to be spend on this type of research. It was put there as a restriction. There is no buget involved in the bill the senate tried to pass. So there is no funding involved here.

Clinton never passed any bill of that nature.  Bush did in his first term.  And if you remove a restriction to using federal dollars for something, you are in effect funding it, even if it comes out of a general budget.

Uuuh? Politicians determine the research buget available for research. I say that one should have the researchers spend this money since they are going to do the actual research. The discussion isn't about creating or removing a buget. It is about restricting the use of the buget that is already available. Furtermore, the senate tried to pass a bill and Bush vetoed it.

Why shouldn't the taxpayers be able to decide what their tax dollars are to fund?  Are they to stupid to be given this freedom?

You can't be serious. When no research was done into adult stem cells it had accomplished as little and one needed as much 'faith' in it to give results. Obviously one needs to invent something before it works so research is needed before it is going to have any result.

Adult stem cells have been used in treatments for paralysis, cancer and multiple sclerosis.

If someone knows the potential of embryonic stem cells it are the actual researchers, not you, me or Bush.

Researchers have a vested interest in arguing that their field deserves funding.  Do you really think that any researcher is going to say, 'please, slash my budget.  Or better yet, go ahead and fire me.  My research isn't going to produce anything.'

[prometheus]

If the government forces you to pay taxes, and spends that money on research, the government is forcing you to pay for research.  And no, no one has the right not to be offended, but they do have property rights, and shouldn't be forced to pay for things outside of the proper realm of government, especially if they find it morally objectionable.

Well, if you follow this then the government can collect as much tax as they want. But they can't spend a dime because always there is going to be a small minority opposed to it being spend. The majority of the population actually want this research to happen. The US government funds a lot of different kinds of research. Never is the opinion of the public asked. Why should it be asked here?

Where does 'actual morality' stem from?

I meant morality where an actual argument is made, instead of referring to dogma which originated 4000 years ago.

A dogma is authoritive and cannot be disputed. Actual morality needs to prove its own value and can be disputed.

I get the feeling that you are using it to refer to whatever particular morals you have.

Of course not. Don't reflect your own personality on me.

And what is 'dogmatic morality'?  Taken literally, it would refer to any objective morality.

Objective morality? Since when does that exist? It could only exist if there is a god and there is no indication for the existence of a god at all. So it cannot exist as far as anyone can tell.

Actually, I guess 'dogmatic morality' is a pleonasm.

You're wrong.  People can take some fundamental beliefs that they hold and extrapolate those ideas to apply to specific scenarios, but the fundamental beliefs themselves can never be rationally proven.  Prove in an objective manner  that murder is wrong, or that child molestation is wrong.  You can't.  No one can.

I wasn't talking about objective proof. I was talking about actual arguments. The OT says: "Thou shalt not kill." That's all. That is not what I call useful morality. But Jesus said: "Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you." That is a tremendous improvement.

Also, you didn't even comment on my point. You claimed no one could make a rational argument for any form of morality. But people have been trying to do this since the beginning of written language. Ethics and morality have been one of the main subjects throughout all philosophy.

Clinton never passed any bill of that nature.  Bush did in his first term.  And if you remove a restriction to using federal dollars for something, you are in effect funding it, even if it comes out of a general budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

Yes, you are effectively funding it. But you were still misrepresenting the facts. The senate tried to remove restrictions, they did not try to pass a buget for stem cell research.

Why shouldn't the taxpayers be able to decide what their tax dollars are to fund?  Are they to stupid to be given this freedom?

They should and they have, that is the point, through the senate. But Bush vetoed it. Now I support direct democracy but the US uses senators. I don't get your point at all. In this rare case the US democracy almost worked as the senate did a good job to represent their voters. But then Bush vetoed and it all went wrong anyway.

Adult stem cells have been used in treatments for paralysis, cancer and multiple sclerosis.

Yes. Actually, for your information, they are also being used by quackeries to make money.

Researchers have a vested interest in arguing that their field deserves funding.  Do you really think that any researcher is going to say, 'please, slash my budget.  Or better yet, go ahead and fire me.  My research isn't going to produce anything.'

This goes for any field of research. I don't know how research funding is spend in the US but the legislation the senate tried to remove has nothing to do with this issue. It is on another level. If you think the way research buget is spend is not working properly then start a new topic about this. My point was that the buget should be spend based on scientific knowledge rather than politician motives. Therefore politicians shouldn't determine how the money is spend but rather the universities or a board of professors. You can concieve of several different ways to do this.

[living_stradivarius]

My question is, why is government spending on stem cell research so important for this line of scientific development? Is there something that private entities lack? Incentives??? High cost???
Besides, how much can the government appropriate to research? Very little.

I'd rather have our government resolve our problems in education, Medicare, Social Security before we add a new spending obligation, which would have more political ramifications than scientific ones. It's not as if a little government spending on research is suddenly going to lead to a discovery that resolves our health care problems.

Bush is using a moral argument, which I don't necessarily agree with, to back a sound economic decision, based on our problems at hand. From a policy perspective, if government-funded stem cell research is really that necessary, then our Congressmen should override the veto. It's all politics. The majority of the US supports the idea of stem cell research (public or private) but they don't think about how their tax dollars are involved, the solvency of such spending, nor the bigger economic picture.
The Gingrich-Clinton bipartisan medical electronic records bill did little for the health care system but those two certainly got the political capital for their act.
Congressmen, with or without their own advocacies on this issue, have little choice but to accede to overwhelming constituent "opinion" on a piece of legislation. My criticism for Bush would be why he isn't spending time justifying it on multiple grounds. Then again, you have the media.