The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

[Yorick]

How many are actually reading the article before responding btw?

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Yorick How many are actually reading the article before responding btw?

There's an article?!

[Bungleau]

I confess to reading, and to researching my response. This isn't the first time I've thought through stem cell research, and I'm sure it won't be the last. I learned a few more things this time, and I expect I'll repeat that process time and again.

As for the thought that "if we don't do it, someone else will"... well, I admit that certainly appears to be true. I read an article today about the Chinese investing a ton of money in DNA sequencers that will enable them to establish a serious genetic research industry.

But the fact that someone else will do it first isn't justification to do something... logically extending from that, everyone you know is going to die, so might as well make them die first. The "It was going to happen anyway" defense is pretty weak.

[Hindsight]

How many are actually reading the article before responding btw?

Not me!
..too long and the font color was annoying.

I think it's too complex an issue, for one article to give me all the answers. And I don't think we have all the answers. And, is Wolfgang Lillge objective, or bias.

[Bungleau]

It certainly is a complex issue. And like many of the best issues (so to speak), there's no clear-cut simple right answer. At least, I don't think there is

That doesn't mean there's no right or wrong answer... it means that you can't arrive at the answer quickly, with a snap decision. You do need to sift through everything and weigh the alternatives for yourself.

For me, the issue comes down to a few facts:

• Embryonic stem cells can automatically become almost any cell in the body (called pluripotency). Tissue stem cells (adult, placental, etc.) can become any cell in the organ they came from (called multipotency). Recent advances appear to allow you to force tissue stem cells back to pluripotency. This is promising...
• When embryonic stem cells are taken from a 5-6 day old embryo (which contains 70-100 cells and is no larger than a grain of sand), the embryo is destroyed. When tissue stem cells are taken, the tissue remains. The key question... is that 5-6 day old 100 cell grain of sand alive? Is it human?
• One of the sources of embryos is fertilization clinics. Far more embryos are prepared than are used, and eventually, something has to be done with the unused embryos. They may be kept in storage in perpetuity, but many are eventually destroyed. This, in my mind, presents the key grey (or gray ) area... should they be destroyed outright, or should their embryonic stem cells be harvested to allow research that should ultimately benefit us all?
• That does open the door to abuse... the thought of people specifically creating embryos so they can sell their stem cells is repugnant to me. But do you stop the practice, or stop the abuse of the practice?

One article cannot (and should not!) give you all the answers. Likewise, one opinion her cannot and should not tell you what to do. However, examining all viewpoints will allow you to make up your own mind.

And that, to me, is one of the most important things.

*edit* I'm not sure those are all of my important facts... I may be forgetting a couple. But I think those are the key issues

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Bungleau As for the thought that "if we don't do it, someone else will"... well, I admit that certainly appears to be true. I read an article today about the Chinese investing a ton of money in DNA sequencers that.

Trouble is you can use that to justify any morally heinous activity. Eugenics for example.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Hindsight Not me! ..too long and the font color was annoying. I think it's too complex an issue, for one article to give me all the answers. And I don't think we have all the answers. And, is Wolfgang Lillge objective, or bias.

So click on the link. There are pictures there too!

[Yorick]

From what I'm reading, adult stem cell research is MORE effective than embryonic, has PROVEN scientific breakthroughs (unlike embryonic stem cell research) and doesn't destroy a human life in the process, thus having no moral concerns.

I'm not really seeing this factor addressed in the replies I'm reading (so far). All the arguments about medical breakthroughs, scientific advances etc. are behind ADULT stem cell research, NOT embryonic.

It seems to me, embryonic research is being USED as part of a broader initiative to undermine the sanctity of human life, rather than actually make medical breakthroughs - considering the aforementioned superiority of adult stem cell research. It also seems to be used to paint those against embryonic research as "anti-science" etc. to de-validate say, pro-life positions in general as being anti-science anti human welfare etc. despite the fact that science proves human life in-utero (the ultrasound) and the welfare of the mother's health (mental and physical) is part of a pro-life position.

I'd prefer to see just the facts discussed. Rape victims? 80%-84% carry to term as having the child substantially increases healing from the rape for example.
Choice? Most women report not HAVING a choice other than to abort. Meaning society and inertia pressure women into having no-choice.
Science? As said, science proves it's human life. It was enough for NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson (75,000 abortions to his name). Google him and read his story.

Without meaning to actually discuss abortion, I'm pointing out that the smoke-screen surrounding embryonic stem cell research appears to follow a similar pattern: ignore the scientific facts whilst using emotional arguments to misrepresent the opposing point of view.

[Bungleau]

Originally Posted by Yorick Trouble is you can use that to justify any morally heinous activity. Eugenics for example.

Agreed. Hence the next paragraph in my post...

But the fact that someone else will do it first isn't justification to do something... logically extending from that, everyone you know is going to die, so might as well make them die first. The "It was going to happen anyway" defense is pretty weak.

You can justify anything from "It would have happened anyway". That's not a justification in my book.

[Bungleau]

Originally Posted by Yorick From what I'm reading, adult stem cell research is MORE effective than embryonic, has PROVEN scientific breakthroughs (unlike embryonic stem cell research) and doesn't destroy a human life in the process, thus having no moral concerns. I'm not really seeing this factor addressed in the replies I'm reading (so far). All the arguments about medical breakthroughs, scientific advances etc. are behind ADULT stem cell research, NOT embryonic.

The difference between tissue research and embryonic research is that tissue research has a 20-year head start. More studies have been done, more things have been tried, and more things have been successful. And more things have failed, too.

Embryonic research is relatively new, starting around 1998. I wonder (and I truly don't know the answer)... how effective was tissue research back when it was twelve years old? How long did it take tissue research to develop these things we're hearing about today?

I find it interesting that after 30+ years, scientists are trying to make tissue stem cells behave like embryonic stem cells. Why didn't they do and figure that out earlier? Perhaps because it was too costly, expensive, and difficult. Perhaps because they hadn't thought about it until someone said "Hmmm.... wonder if we can make *these* behave like *those*?". I just don't know.

It seems to me, embryonic research is being USED as part of a broader initiative to undermine the sanctity of human life, rather than actually make medical breakthroughs - considering the aforementioned superiority of adult stem cell research. It also seems to be used to paint those against embryonic research as "anti-science" etc. to de-validate say, pro-life positions in general as being anti-science anti human welfare etc. despite the fact that science proves human life in-utero (the ultrasound) and the welfare of the mother's health (mental and physical) is part of a pro-life position.

Again, the time line. I'm unaware of anyone behind stem cell research who says "Ignore tissue research... do embryonic instead". Rather, I'm seeing different people investigating different paths. And those who are researching are encouraging others to research... whether on their own path or a different one.

I'd prefer to see just the facts discussed. Rape victims? 80%-84% carry to term as having the child substantially increases healing from the rape for example.

I find this statistic... interesting. What healing does it increase? How so? how much? Info, please

Choice? Most women report not HAVING a choice other than to abort. Meaning society and inertia pressure women into having no-choice.

Again, I find this interesting. I haven't seen the research/polls (and am willing to read them) for whether or not there is a choice. I'm also interested in what leads to your conclusion, that society and inertia pressure them. Is that in the polls as well? Eager to read, I am...

On another front, carrying an unwanted child to term and putting it up for adoption is not such a simple decision. A large part of the reality is that said child may sit for years waiting for someone to decide they would like to adopt them. There's a long waiting list to adopt healthy Caucasian babies. If you want a non-Caucasian child, or a child with physical or health disorders and challenges, the line is much shorter.

Not as many people are willing to choose a child who starts with disabilities, handicaps, and challenges... would you willingly sentence a child to 18 years of shuttling around from foster home to foster home, hoping they don't run into an abusive situation, until they're 18 and kicked out onto the streets? But that's another topic.

Science? As said, science proves it's human life. It was enough for NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson (75,000 abortions to his name). Google him and read his story.

Will read. Once the definition of human life is agreed upon, everything becomes easy. I think.

Without meaning to actually discuss abortion, I'm pointing out that the smoke-screen surrounding embryonic stem cell research appears to follow a similar pattern: ignore the scientific facts whilst using emotional arguments to misrepresent the opposing point of view.

That statement appears true on both sides....

Here's a link to the Michael J Fox Foundation's position paper on stem cell research. For those unaware, Fox has early onset Parkinson's disease, and his foundation supports finding a cure. Stem cell research is one of the potential avenues that they support.

I need to run... will be back later, undoubtedly.