Stem Cell Research

[Nebu]

Well, I'll go with the National Institutes of Health as a great place to start.  Why? Because these are the people I beg for millions of dollars on an annual basis.  I think this is a reputable place to start and gives basics, policy, etc.

NIH Stem Cell Research Site

I'll post more "topical sites" as they occur to me.  Many of the places that I frequent (Medscape for one) require registration or an annual fee.  I'll try to find some more mainstream sites when time allows.

I hope some of you find this helpful... the site also contains some further links (see other online resources for topics like cardiac applications, regenerative medicine, etc.)

[Dark Vengeance]

http://bioethics.gov/

The President's Council on Bioethics.....we can talk about potential benefits and whatnot, but the aspect of the issue that makes it both political and controversial is the bioethics debate.

Because face it, if it weren't a political issue, it would not have been brought up in a political debate thread.

Bring the noise.
Cheers................

[Ezdaar]

Nebu, can you also post some of the registration sites? Some of us have access to university subscriptions :)

[Nebu]

Nebu, can you also post some of the registration sites? Some of us have access to university subscriptions :)

As you wish!

Medscape

MedGenMed

Free Medical Journals

Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences

Some of these require registration and others charge a fee.  I have links to some 100+ journals and services but thought these were as good a place to start as any.

I hope that helps.

[Ezdaar]

Gracias.

[Dren]

...Many of the places that I frequent (Medscape for one) require registration or an annual fee....  

Cool.  Does a full year registration unlock any races I can get cells from?

[jpark]

For investor types out there, here is one of the original companies in the area - their IP is around adult rather than embryonic stem cells:

http://www.geron.com/

Buyer beware :)

[Righ]

Doesn't the ethical argument against embryonic stem cell research require the concept of the sanctity of life? That being the case, how does a political party that supports the death penalty reconcile their obvious hypocrisy? You could argue that those put to death by government sponsored killing through either the death penalty or state sponsored first strikes in acts of war are people who have commited crimes. However, that does not stand up to the concept of original sin, posited by the major religions that are inspiring the politicians who seek their votes. Are we in fact suggesting that the literal interpretation of being born with original sin be determined by medical birth? If that it the case, then the only non-sinners are the foetuses prior to birth. Perhaps we need to enact laws that further penalise life that has been born in order to support life that remains unborn. I'm sure we can find some new 'ethical' doctors that will be willing to experiment on newly born babies instead of the aborted foetuses of, for example, rape victims.

Simply put, to call the present state position ethical is to make a mockery of the concept of ethics, just as it is laughable that none of the ministers who seek to legislate on these issues have significant philosophical or religious training. Even an armchair philosopher can recognise the dichotomy of the positions made by these politicians as those of deceitful idealogues most resembling Manichaeism.

[Dark Vengeance]

Doesn't the ethical argument against embryonic stem cell research require the concept of the sanctity of life? That being the case, how does a political party that supports the death penalty reconcile their obvious hypocrisy?

We went over this in the other thread....for myself, it is the source of the embryos. I have a problem with manufacturing embryos specifically for research purposes. I'd be okay with using embryos salvaged from IVF clinics, provided we make sure there isn't de facto manufacturing taking place.

For others to my right, it is the idea that even embryos salvaged from IVF clinics are not ethical to use either.....their idea is that the embryo (which will die regardless) deserves the dignity of death without being experimented upon.

As the death penalty goes, I think you can respect the sanctity of life, and still execute people that do not share that same value, and are committed to ending human life....such as mass murderers, serial killers, terrorists, traitors, etc. It's a case of the government taking one life to protect the lives of others. The bible itself is open to interpretation on the subject of capital punishment as well....it's not as simple as the 6th commandment (i.e. Thou shalt not kill)....as particularly in the old testament, corporal and capital punishment are both advocated.

After all, look what capital punishment did for that Jesus guy.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Arnold]

As the death penalty goes, I think you can respect the sanctity of life, and still execute people that do not share that same value, and are committed to ending human life....such as mass murderers, serial killers, terrorists, traitors, etc. It's a case of the government taking one life to protect the lives of others. The bible itself is open to interpretation on the subject of capital punishment as well....it's not as simple as the 6th commandment (i.e. Thou shalt not kill)....as particularly in the old testament, corporal and capital punishment are both advocated.

It seems to me that in this day and age, where we have the ability to lock someone away from scoiety for good, the religious right should be against the death penalty.  Why pass judgement and issue capital punishment, when you could just lock the criminal up until the lord takes him and let god make his own judgement.

I can understand capital punishment for keeping the offenders away from the community when you have no means to lock them up for life, but why pursue it now?

But then again, I'm an atheist who believes in the death penalty as a "game over" action for those who commit  terrible crimes against society, so what do I know?

[personman]

For others to my right, it is the idea that even embryos salvaged from IVF clinics are not ethical to use either.....their idea is that the embryo (which will die regardless) deserves the dignity of death without being experimented upon.

Good summary DV.  It's a viewpoint that really perplexes me.  The most acceptable rationale I can come up with to understand it it is that this is a modern version of social Onanism.

Now I can't have an organ removed and donate it to science or an ill person - if it's still alive when detached it would be unethical to experiment upon it "hoping" for a clean transplant.

The frozen zygotes were already created knowing the odds of any of them becoming a human being were extremely slight.  I won't thrash this one again since it's already been raised, but it is an obvious inconsistency of how life should be valued.

As the death penalty goes, I think you can respect the sanctity of life, and still execute people that do not share that same value, and are committed to ending human life....

This is pretty much my view.  I opposed the death penalty until DNA testing made it effective.  Now I'm an proponent of this as US policy, though not an especially enthusiastic one since our justice system still has plenty of abuse and flaw.

I've always opposed abortion but I don't consider it murder.  My opposition is more from the impact I see it has on all involved.  But I vociferous oppose banning abortion because I do accept it's not society's decision.  Society's role needs to be creating a world where abortion is almost never needed.

Where I conflict with political organizations typically comes down on their unerring tendency to oppose programs that would make abortion extremely rare.

But stem cell research to me is a no-brainer.  What particualy irritates me is that this law doesn't even accomplish the goal of upholding ethics.  All it does is (1) push influence over the research out of the grasp of the government, and (2) ensure that the benefits of the research most benefits non-American economies (our economy will bled off to those economies from whom we're buying the results).

[Dren]

Not all right minded folks believe the death penalty is the correct method.

From a Christian point of view, it is sin regardless of some Old Testament ideas.  Jesus taught to always forgive. (Doesn't mean you don't keep them locked up though.  Jesus didn't teach to always trust.  That is something entirely different.)
Killing babies before they are born is a sin.
Making babies outside of the natural reproductive system is a sin.
Using the byproducts of sin is a sin regardless of the good that may come of it.  The ends do not justify the means.

We can label each of these acts and try to catagorize them, but from God's point of view they are all sin.  All equally distasteful to Him according to the New Testament.

A Christian can accept the current laws because that is also something we are commanded to do, but we do not have to support them.  If given the chance, I would try to make those laws reflect the above, but in the end your sin is not my sin.  I sin enough on my own thanks.  Heck, just by accepting some medicines that were developed, unknown to me, by these types of methods or others I'd find deplorable I'm probably sinning.  If given the decision to either watch my child die or take the medicine, I'd choose the human thing to do and save her/him even if it was questionable in the eyes of God.  (Seems like choosing one sin for another.)

Like anyone, I have to take the bad with the good when I pick a candidate to vote for.  I just have to look for what I consider more of the good to outweigh the bad I see in the other one.

This is just from one Christian's view.  Take it as you will.

[jpark]

The hope in Biotechnology is that adult stem cells (extracted from an adult) can be used without having to resort to fetal tissue.

Stem cells exist in adults but in the past it was thought their usefulness would come nowhere close to those that were embryonic (obviously obtained from an embryo).  Evidence has mounted considerably that adult stem cells have great range of medical applications that once were thought to be only addressable with embryonic tissue.

Lot of questions remain of course - at a technical level.  Ethically, I hope that the use of adult stem cells will be more acceptable to those uncomfortable with the use of embryonic stem cells.

For babies today - there is also the option of storing stem cells from their umblical cord.  If such stem cells are in fact embyonic - not clear to me - this may address the ethical issue again since it comes from a person that actually did continue to develop into an adult.  These cells are meant to be retained for the possible use by the donor or famliy members.

[Righ]

We went over this in the other thread....

Unlike the "other thread", there appears to be more reasoned discourse in this one. Having said that, we haven't reached page 2 yet.

I disagree with the notion that you are respecting the sanctity of life if you believe that you can impose the death penalty on those who do not share your views, and have themselves taken a life. That's very much a reflection of retributive justice, not unlike the concept of Shariah law as interpreted by rural ulema, that we are so quick to condemn. I understand retributive justice, though I don't agree with it, particularly as an alternative to transformative methods. What I don't understand is why somebody would advocate such a philosophy while simultaneously advocating that the sanctity of life must be respected as soon as the union of parental gametes takes place.

[Dren]

The hope in Biotechnology is that adult stem cells (extracted from an adult) can be used without having to resort to fetal tissue.

Stem cells exist in adults but in the past it was thought their usefulness would come nowhere close to those that were embryonic (obviously obtained from an embryo).  Evidence has mounted considerably that adult stem cells have great range of medical applications that once were thought to be only addressable with embryonic tissue.

Lot of questions remain of course - at a technical level.  Ethically, I hope that the use of adult stem cells will be more acceptable to those uncomfortable with the use of embryonic stem cells.

For babies today - there is also the option of storing stem cells from their umblical cord.  If such stem cells are in fact embyonic - not clear to me - this may address the ethical issue again since it comes from a person that actually did continue to develop into an adult.  These cells are meant to be retained for the possible use by the donor or famliy members.

I do not profess to be an expert in this.  In fact, I'm in the process of becoming more educated since this thread was started.  After I made my post, I began to think that perhaps there are ways to use stem cells without mucking things up in the reproduction area.

If the cells can be collected in the manner you described, it starts to feel a bit more comfortable to me.  Better yet, it might be more comfortable with others too (since my one vote alone doesn't mean much.)  I do believe that route would be much more successful and should be the priority of the organizations involved.

Using matter that will be thrown away or are present in adults outside of their reproductive system does not seem to be all that bad to me.  The growing of organs is a far cry different from growing a human being so I do not see an issue there either.  My "line" is drawn on anything that prevents healthy matter to become a human or where humans are created by men.

That "line" may seem to have been drawn out of my Christian beliefs, but there are more earthly reasons as well.  I don't want to make this post any longer than it already is (too long,) but it mostly has to do with human greed and conflict with the value of human life.

I still do not feel I know enough about this.  I'll have to spend some time reading some of the links above.  If anyone see something in my post that is incorrect from a stem cell science point of view, please call me on it.

*Edited* Spelling is hard in the morning.

[Roac]

Doesn't the ethical argument against embryonic stem cell research require the concept of the sanctity of life?

Normally, but not neccessarily.  To pull up the concepts of the other discussion, moral relavism doesn't require justification for any moral stance.  On the other hand, people usually don't make arbitrary decisions on their moral relavistic views, and instead base them on concepts such as the (1) sanctity of life, and (2) that life begins at conception.  Moral absolutism may try to argue from point 1, but they would be somewhat mistaken; they are likely misunderstanding that their moralities derrive (unles they are really realavistic) from God/Allah/The Talking Teacup, who needs no justification other than "because I said so".  Point 2 wouldn't be a moral concept, but rather a definition used to come to a conclusion.

That being the case, how does a political party that supports the death penalty reconcile their obvious hypocrisy?

It may be hypocritical, and is only such if the argument is self-contradictory, for example if the moral view were argued from a position of the "sanctity of life".  There may be a different basis used in the determination of what is moral, in which case the stance may or may not be hypocritical.

Simply put, to call the present state position ethical is to make a mockery of the concept of ethics

Our governmental concept of ethics is based on the will of the people, not a logical study.  The government cannot legally base its laws entirely off moral absolutism, since that would require religion.  As a result, we use something more akin to social relavism, which boils down to "whatever the people will accept".  I think pointing fingers at the government regarding the schizophrenic way it makes decisions is to miss the point, since that's how it's designed to make decisions.

[Roac]

The bible itself is open to interpretation on the subject of capital punishment as well....

That would be because the Bible does not accept the concept of sanctity of life.

[Nebu]

An argument that I hear quite often references itself back to the Manhatten Project (and earlier):

Just because we can doesn't always mean we should.[/i]  

I'm not saying that I agree with this notion, I'm just reminding you that it is out there.  Personally, I think that the knowledge that this research produces could turn out some wonderful ideas and directions in medicine.  Sadly, there are always the minority few that will look for applications of the research for personal gain.  These people will often test ethical boundaries in the process.

[Roac]

I'm not saying that I agree with this notion, I'm just reminding you that it is out there.

"Just because you can jump off a cliff, doesn't mean you should".  The problem with either agreement or disagreement with such broad statements as the one you referenced is that they cover so many applications.  The implied meaning however, is that some technologies have social negatives that we as a society are not equipped to deal with.  In the case of atomic weapons, you're talking about technology that for the first time had the potential application to end all Human life, and that power could rest in a single individual.

Imagine how hurt people are over 9/11.  Remember the shock and horror people felt.  We lost around 3,000 people that day.  A military-grade nuclear weapon could, if detonated at the same location, have cost a thousand times that number.  If we were a purely rational society, you would think that there would be more concern over this.  

Genetics raises a whole new set of issues that I again am not certain we're paying enough attention to.  Scientists would probably largely disagree with me, but they have an agenda to push as well.  Then you have people pushing to receive healthcare benefits, and people looking to get profits from the same, etc etc.  There's not a lot of incentive left to worry about our culture or our fate.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

The bible itself is open to interpretation on the subject of capital punishment as well....

That would be because the Bible does not accept the concept of sanctity of life.

First rule of book reviews: read it.

"'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again" - John Edwards.

This is why politics suck.

[Dren]

The bible itself is open to interpretation on the subject of capital punishment as well....

That would be because the Bible does not accept the concept of sanctity of life.

First rule of book reviews: read it.

"'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again" - John Edwards.

This is why politics suck.

1.  Thanks for the Bible comment.  I didn't want to be the only one.
2.  Wow, that is an amazing quote.  Just wow. (Not saying Republicans don't say stupid things....just wow.)

[Zetleft]

The bible itself is open to interpretation on the subject of capital punishment as well....

That would be because the Bible does not accept the concept of sanctity of life.

First rule of book reviews: read it.

"'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again" - John Edwards.

This is why politics suck.

Wait a few days, newspapers will start their headlines stating, "Bush killed superman"

[Jayce]

moral relavism
realavistic

I think you are trying to say "relativisim".  Maybe it's nitpicky, but it's hard enough to follow your argument already.


Another argument against is the slippery slope.  I haven't read the other thread, so I don't know if it's been covered, but the other day when I was thinking about the issue, it occurred to me that a real concern could be that if we start using embryonic stem cells, even from non-viable embryos, who is to say that five years from now when it's good and off the radar, someone doesn't start mass-producing human embryos for sale.

If stem cells really are the magic bullet they have been touted to be, they will be really valuable.  And most high-value items eventually get exploited by the unprincipled.

[Nebu]

The implied meaning however, is that some technologies have social negatives that we as a society are not equipped to deal with.  In the case of atomic weapons, you're talking about technology that for the first time had the potential application to end all Human life, and that power could rest in a single individual.

That sums it up well. Thanks.

This is why politics suck.

One of the many reasons.  This is a statement that I hope Edwards regrets for the rest of his career.  I mean... what a stupid fucking thing to say.  Not only in content, but context.  A good man (Reeve) dies and it is already being used for political folly.  I'm apalled.

[Shannow]

The bible itself is open to interpretation on the subject of capital punishment as well....

That would be because the Bible does not accept the concept of sanctity of life.

First rule of book reviews: read it.

"'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again" - John Edwards.

This is why politics suck.

Wait a few days, newspapers will start their headlines stating, "Bush killed superman"

Cant...resist....

No the headline will read 'Kerry is the Second coming!'

[Dren]

moral relavism
realavistic

I think you are trying to say "relativisim".  Maybe it's nitpicky, but it's hard enough to follow your argument already.


Another argument against is the slippery slope.  I haven't read the other thread, so I don't know if it's been covered, but the other day when I was thinking about the issue, it occurred to me that a real concern could be that if we start using embryonic stem cells, even from non-viable embryos, who is to say that five years from now when it's good and off the radar, someone doesn't start mass-producing human embryos for sale.

If stem cells really are the magic bullet they have been touted to be, they will be really valuable.  And most high-value items eventually get exploited by the unprincipled.

That's the road I didn't want to go down in my post, but you hit it on the head anyway.  We humans will take this to the least common denominator...cold hard cash regardless of how many potential humans are at stake.

While many bodily tissues are sold now, they aren't quite the same thing.  I've broke it down in my tiny head like this:

- Eggs:  They can't form themselves into humans by themselves no matter what environment you put them in.
- Sperm:  Same thing as eggs.
- Embryos:  Given the right conditions and nutrients, this WILL grow into a human and only a human.  Not a dog or a cat or a mouse, but a human will be created.  It is a process that will take place on its own because the first step was taken (infusing the sperm with the egg.)  Now you just keep it safe, warm, and fed.  This last part is no different than a baby that is born either.  A baby will die if it is not kept safe, warm, and fed too, so that cannot be a distinction between life and not life.

Of course, now it comes down to whether you think an embryo is just a sac of tissue or a life.  I choose the latter and that is without any religious explanations at all.  That's how I see it.

[plangent]

Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

-George Carlin

[personman]

- Embryos:  Given the right conditions and nutrients, this WILL grow into a human and only a human.  Not a dog or a cat or a mouse, but a human will be created.  It is a process that will take place on its own because the first step was taken (infusing the sperm with the egg.)  Now you just keep it safe, warm, and fed.

That's no minor step and in the context of this discussion this process does not take place on its own.  Not like dropping a seed in the ground and watching for rain.

And that's probably where a lot of people misunderstand what's involved.  I think most people are visualizing fetuses, which are human as we know it - they have organs, nervous system, etc.

The embryos created in fertility clinics are just so much protoplasm sloshing around in a test tube and frozen into popsicles.  It takes some hard heroic science for that blob to have a chance at life.  The blob isn't even legally considered an unborn child until it's in the womb.

And yes someday that blob could be recognizable as a human being, but the transition stage between zygote and embryo is not a human.  No organs, no nerves, etc.

Personally I'd love a metaphysical argument on when the soul enters the body.  Something tells me it's not at the moment of initial cell division.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

-George Carlin

Not every comedian has a medical degree.

[Roac]

The bible itself is open to interpretation on the subject of capital punishment as well....

That would be because the Bible does not accept the concept of sanctity of life.

First rule of book reviews: read it.

Yes, go read it.  I'll repeat it; the Bible does not respect or accept the sanctity of life.  It only respects God's will, whose motive at times was something akin to the sanctity of life.  However, it should be beyond doubt that this is not absolute, and some of the stories illustrate this directly.

1) God let himself die
2) Sodom and Gomorrah
3) Ordering Abraham to sacrifice his only son
4) God is omnipotent, yet introduced death as a result of original sin
5) Several OT battles where God ordered cities slaughtered to the last man, woman and child
6) God endorsed capital punnishment
7) The plagues of Egypt
8) Most of the book of Revelations
9) And Job
10) God killing someone for pulling out during intercourse, instead of getting his new wife pregnant.

Then there's the whole flood thing, where he effectively slaughtered the entire world's population.  Or, depending on your translation, a significant portion of it.

The only Biblical moral objective is to obay God's will.  If that will is to protect a life, then the moral imperitive is to protect it; if that will is to rip apart someone limb from limp and dance with their entrails as a head dress, then anything less is sinful.  That will has been described as far more protective of life than not, but there is no absolute imperitive for the sanctity of life.

[Roac]

I think most people are visualizing fetuses, which are human as we know it - they have organs, nervous system, etc.

We're back to the original point.  If we accept that it is generally, and for our purposes, wrong to kill a Human, we still have to define what a Human is.  If you define it as "they have organs, nervous system, etc" - what about people with artificial organs or on life support?  No longer Human?  

Personally I'd love a metaphysical argument on when the soul enters the body. Something tells me it's not at the moment of initial cell division.

To really screw up most conservative arguments - what about twins?  Are there two souls in that first embryotic cell?  If not, what happens to arguments that rely on something metaphysical (religious, etc)?

[plangent]

As far as I know there is only one consistant trait in any religion's description of the soul.  That trait is immortality.  So my question is what difference does it make if embryos have souls if those souls are by definition unkillable?

[Dren]

Again, just because it is hard to get an embryo to the state of a fetus (yes, I know what the difference is,) does not make it any less important than a fetus.  Like I said, it is hard to keep a baby alive too.  That is no small feat either.  It takes a lot of time, money, nurturing, personal effort, etc.  I have a hard time stating something is wrong just because it is difficult.  In my mind, a human life is worth the effort if you choose to start it.

As I also said, I am not even bringing the whole "when is there a soul" argument.  I am making the argument that a soul WILL be introduced to this embryo if the effort is extended to it to keep it alive and grow.  Why is something that less valuable just because it isn't to that one divine stage that somehow makes it a human or not a human?

Regardless of religion, I feel it is our responsiblities as humans to finish the job of reproduction once we start that process.  That has nothing to do with God's will, but my sense of morality.  It just so happens to coincide with His will as far as I see it.

As for the Bible post above, please read more of the New Testament.  All but one of your examples are from the Old Testament.  Revelations is from the New, but it is the end of times after all.  There will be winners and there will be losers.  That's what most religions are based on.

The stories from the Old are about people that were trying to do everything they desperately could do to be "right" in God's eyes.  The whole point of the New is that those things are not necessary since Jesus came to do that for everyone himself.  Jesus was all about preserving the sanctity of life.

True, God is to be first, but the very next focus is on people.  Those are Jesus' new two commandments.  Love God and love people.  All the rest will come through those two things.

While you are right to say there were some cold things done in God's name during the Old days, you are totally ignoring the rest of the book.  

This is probably a subject that should be taken to PM's or to another thread.  It could go on forever.

[Roac]

So my question is what difference does it make if embryos have souls if those souls are by definition unkillable?

It would require that there be some value attached to the soul living in a mortal body, and that the diety (God, Allah, Zeus, or whatever) has hence decreed life important enough to live.  Or, in the case of Buddhist traditions, the difference is the karmic consequences to your own soul in the next life.  For Buddhism, karmic gain is the end.  For other religions, service to the diety who wills such is the end.  Polytheistic religions usually have some element of personal amusement or other gain earned from the decisions of the deities.  Monotheistic religions usually revolve around a motive by the deity to form a relationship of some sort with the creation.  Presumably, that would imply life affects the nature of the relationship.

[stray]

Manichaeism

Wow. I'm impressed. I would have been much better off in this thread instead of the others.

As far as I know there is only one consistant trait in any religion's description of the soul. That trait is immortality. So my question is what difference does it make if embryos have souls if those souls are by definition unkillable?

Because, according to any religion, whether in the Buddhist or Christian sense, etc., the soul's "sole" purpose on earth is growth. The reason for that immortality is to learn something. Cutting the opportunity short is the percieved injustice here, I think. Not "Sanctity of Life" necessarily...I'm not even sure what that means really.

Victims of capital punishment, on the other hand, have at least been given their chance, but in the end, prove they haven't learned a thing (or perhaps they learn a bit too late, I guess).