Stem cell research

I'd say it depends on the type. One type is ethically ok (or so it seems) wheras the one involving a fetus is generally controversial...it goes hand in hand with the abortion debate.

One argument I'd like to throw out right away, is that some claim "Well, the abortion has already been done...in those cases, we should be able to definitely use the fetus for stem cell research."

I challenge this notion by comparing it to cannibalism: "Well, I've already killed him, so there's no harm in eating him".

 

my ps3 has an option to be used to donate processing power to stem cell research
thats what it does when im not using it =p

 

Here's my thought. Stem cell reasearch is probably one the many things that might find cures for some serious diseases. So why not, why not look beyond what most people see and think of what can be acomplished if we humans perfect it? Maybe Cancer can be eliminated. Maybe, maybe anything can be eliminated.

 

But if that's your primary motivation...why not cut open a living person and steal their organs?

Because of that wonderful word we all learn to hate: Ethics.

 

Again...ethics.

 

It depends on the type of stem cell...and unfortunately, the type that can 'grow into organs' or do all this marvelous stuff you guys are going on about, are fetal stem cells. Meaning exactly that, it either was, or could have been, a living, breathing human being (depending on your standpoint in the 'where live begins' issue).

I realize I'm paralleling many things in the abortion thread...with good reason. It's completely tied in with abortion. Often times people say 'they're aborting the fetus anyway, why not use it for research? It's efficient.' Again, if you have a certain stance on abortion, this is identical to saying 'He's gonna die anyway, why don't we just eat him. It's efficient.'..I think I said that in the abortion topic actually.

So...the bottom line. WHY Mr. Mike, are they so unethical? Simple. We don't know the answer to any of the previous questions. Thus, since ethics revolve around the fact of ensuring painless/equitable treatment, they err on the side of caution...so as far as the ethics are concerned, everything is true. A fetus is a living person, and killing it 'might' be wrong...so we can't do it.

That's how ethics work...that's why we don't have very good knowledge of the brain. The organ must be dead for someone to be pronounced dead, and if someone is not dead, it's unethical to examine the brain...quite a conundrum. Of course we're making headway, with the various types of scanners etc. but we still can't cut open a living person's head and poke their brain and such, for research purposes. (We can if we have a medical reason to do so, for their own benefit)

Ethics are a pain in the butt, let me tell you. I was denied ethics approval for my thesis, which involved measuring spinal perturbations and stability in mining truck drivers...the reason? I can't guarantee it won't cause low back pain in the test subjects.

So yeah....ethics.

 

Yes, you're right. Actually, I also mentioned that in the post that was lost and pasted some links to some articles: Fetal Stem Cells have been known to cause cancer. Actually, at all the points in your body, stem cells areas are generally where cancers start, I've heard. For instance, at the very bottom of your esophagus, the 'boundary' between esophageal cells and stomach cells isn't very clearcut...this is where 'throat cancer' starts. The explanation being that stomach cells are protected against stomach acid, esophageal cells aren't so much...so if some acid splashes up there (that's what heartburn is), some things can go haywire.

Fetal Stem Cells have actually had surprising results that were considered pretty good...they house all the genetic 'growth' information in the body after all. They can be used as fertilizer to make pretty much anything. The problem however, is that a fetus grows into a full human being. If you turn a human being into a liver, that'll be one giant-ass liver that grows uncontrollably...that's what cancer is.

A testament to the benefits of fetal stem cells is Christopher Reeve, who suffed a C2 spinal cord sever...the highest of any surviving person. The nerves that allow you to breathe are I believe C4 myotomes...so these would have been nonfunctioning nerves, and sure enough, Christopher Reeve couldn't breathe on his own. By the end of his life, after numerous treatments, he could partially move one of his fingers...which is remarkable to say the least. I don't know how much this spine stuff (C2, C4) makes sense, but if it does, then you know what I mean. Taken from his site however:

Amniotic (or 'Placental') Stem Cells are the other popular type...unfortunately for them however, the placenta is quite literally fertilizer...for the fetus. It doesn't have the capabilities the fetus does, but one can argue it aids the process.

Some scientists claim these cells may have the capabilities a fetus does, What's really missing in this case is a true catalyst...if we had some kind of 'baby form' of liver, we could probably grow it quite successfully...perhaps even two. But what really makes them special is that they're resilient in the human body. They aren't rejected like organ donations.

So unfortunately, as far as anything I've read goes, we haven't really seen as exhilarating results with amniotic stem cells (do you remember your sources? I could be wrong...or maybe I have out of date sources. I'd rather be wrong than right in this case). It's still a good area of research, yes...but I don't think these will be the type to be curing cancer or anything, anytime soon. Maybe they'll play a role (like maybe how I was describing, a fuel or fertilizer), but not a full blown cure. I've yet to hear anyone doing good research in nerves involving this type.


EDIT: Oh, something else I wrote but lost, was the fact that cutting edge research involves taking skin cells, 'reprogramming them' to kind of reverse age and become stem cells. That's kind of mind blowing...I wonder if there's promise.

 

Yep. When the baby's born, the blood in the umblical cord's unique...they

 

Yep. When the baby's born, the blood in the umbilical cord is unlike any other occurance of blood. I'm not positive, but I think they collect it and have to separate the stem cells from the placenta/blood/etc. which I heard was tedious.

It inherits the name "Amniotic" as that's the name of the fluid that surrounds the baby during pregnancy (and also the water that 'breaks' during labour).