your thoughts on stem cell research

skeeve

Member
Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
This makes me want to watch Gattica when I get home.

Personally I\'m of the Theory that we are in an era of Technological Darwinism. Humans Biologically have stopped evolving, or at least have stopped evolving through Darwin\'s theories.

And this opinion is based on what evidence?

As for destruction of embryos... Do you know how many embryos are thrown down the drain in in vitro fertilization clinics every year? I suggest you find these numbers, they are publicly available; may be then it will become clear that the whole argument about embryo destruction makes absolutely no sense.
 

Gilvan Blight

New member
No evidence in particular. I\'m not a scientist nor do I spend lots of time doing any research written by scientists. To me it just seems that our species in general no longer eliminates as many non-adaptive traits as we have in the past. Most of this due to technology and not any biological evolution. In the past if you caught smallpox you died, not the case now. In the past if you were quadrapalegic you usually didn\'t live a very long life, now you can live a normal lifespan. I\'ll admit I don\'t have a book full of facts here, just a general feel/opinon/theory, that I don\'t have the time or inclanation to actually try to test.
 

tzor

New member
Originally posted by uberdark
was watching michael j. fox this morning on the news and got to thinking this would be a good topic to discuss. i am for it personally. the first hospital we had our first child at would not let us keep his umbilicial because it was a religious funded church. the second church allowed us to keep our childs umbilical cord because it was not.

First, I have to admit I’m kind of puzzled about the umbilical cord and religious funding thing; that’s definitely confusing. I know as a Roman Catholic there is nothing about the use of umbilical cord material as far as moral or ethical considerations are concerned.

Now on to stem cells: There are two types of stem cells that are talked about embryonic and adult. There are considerable moral and ethical questions with the former. Let’s just ignore them for a moment. Using a finite set of cell lines for stem cell cures is a guaranteed failure from the start. The simple reason is the same reason why you just can’t transplant anyone organs into anyone else; protean cell walls and immune responses also known as tissue rejection. It’s hard to argue about whether we should be on first base or running to second base when someone put up a wall between third and home.

Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are already providing cures. Right here and right now! Economic logic demands that one exhaust all possibilities that will work before looking into possibilities that might work. Thus every dollar that is spent on embryonic stem cells is one less dollar that is spent on adult stem cells and one more cure that is under funded by a dollar.
 

L.E.J.

New member
@ gilvan: i understand ur point on natural selection no longer being valid in humans but i disagree about the biological evolution as your point kind of disagrees with you.
like you said quadraplegics can have a \"normal life\" now (ig there is such a thing :D ) and that is the case with many debilitating diseases / disablilities to the point where children in the future is not out of the question.
is that not biological evolution (if not strictly natural selection) ?
 

Dedwrekka

New member
Genetics is the weird, strange, magical science that I have only a real basic understanding of. (Same could be applied to Religion in my case as well).

I\'m not going to pretend to know anything about it or what and god or gods that do or don\'t exist out there will or will not say about what may or maynot happen in genetic research.
So while I remain confused, let them make all the miracle cures and goats-that-make-spider-silk-milk that they want. Who am I to say what\'s right or wrong by anyone\'s point of view, especially that of something much larger than me (like society or god).
 

green stuff

Active member
Message original : Dedwrekka
Genetics is the weird, strange, magical science that I have only a real basic understanding of. (Same could be applied to Religion in my case as well).
I hope my quoting of this won\'t be missinterpretated, it just made me think of Arthur C. Clarke\'s third \"law\" :

\"3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.\"

And I think that the first two \"laws\" can be on topic :

\"1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.\"

But what best sums up my position on the topic is François Rabelais\' thought :

\"Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul.”
 

Gilvan Blight

New member
Originally posted by L.E.J.
@ gilvan: i understand ur point on natural selection no longer being valid in humans but i disagree about the biological evolution as your point kind of disagrees with you.
like you said quadraplegics can have a \"normal life\" now (ig there is such a thing :D ) and that is the case with many debilitating diseases / disablilities to the point where children in the future is not out of the question.
is that not biological evolution (if not strictly natural selection) ?

Last responce regarding this, as the thread should be about stem cells and not evolution. If you want to continue this we can start a new thread or PM me as others have.

That is exactly what I meant by Darwinian evolution, no longer applying no more Natural Selection or at least limited Natural Selection. I didn\'t say we don\'t evolve at all, I\'m saying that we don\'t evolve in that way anymore.

Back on Topic: I didn\'t realize that there was so much progress on Adult stem cells, that comment that every buck spent on embroynic should be spent on adult seems very valid.
 

freakinacage

Well-known member
Originally posted by green stuff
Message original : Dedwrekka
Genetics is the weird, strange, magical science that I have only a real basic understanding of. (Same could be applied to Religion in my case as well).
I hope my quoting of this won\'t be missinterpretated, it just made me think of Arthur C. Clarke\'s third \"law\" :

\"3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.\"

And I think that the first two \"laws\" can be on topic :

\"1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.\"

But what best sums up my position on the topic is François Rabelais\' thought :

\"Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul.”
trust the bloody french to come up with good stuff like that!!
 

El Matador

New member
Originally posted by Avelorn


But what happens when a small percentage of the population can genetically engineer themselves. Job competition? New ruling class? An increasing gap between rich and poor - even more unequal opportunities.

Space Marines!!!!!
 

treide

New member
Stem cell research is promising and should be pursued, both adult and embryonic. Adult stem cell research leads to fewer ethical problems (though it still has plenty), but if embryonic stem cells from fertility clinics are going to be discarded anyway, why not use them to further research as well?

Stem cells will be used to treat diseases initially, but like any other medical advance, once it can be applied to enhance normal performance, it will be used. Humans are a rather vain species - think of all the money spent on Rogaine, Viagra, cosmetic surgery, and boob jobs each year.

And yes, I managed to work boobs into the discussion (pats self on back).
 

Dedwrekka

New member
Originally posted by green stuff
Message original : Dedwrekka
Genetics is the weird, strange, magical science that I have only a real basic understanding of. (Same could be applied to Religion in my case as well).
I hope my quoting of this won\'t be missinterpretated, it just made me think of Arthur C. Clarke\'s third \"law\" :

\"3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.\"

And I think that the first two \"laws\" can be on topic :

\"1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.\"
Very true. If you say that it\'s impossible, it\'s an ignorant statement, as it\'s just not very likely at the current time, not impossible.

I understand that genetics makes sense if it\'s explained the right way or if you\'re well versed in it, but to someone outside of that understanding, making a copy of some creature is mystical and magical in it\'s own right.

All in all, when it comes down to what should happen with research, I believe that unless you\'re well versed in it and understand it completely, then your side on the topic is weighed down with less logic and many assumptions. Those who know what they\'re talking about implicitly, should be the decision makers in how it is used.

Many a scientist has considered themselves bringers of death when precisely the opposite happens, and those who barely understand it decide on a research\'s use.
 

skeeve

Member
Sorry for resurrecting, but it might be interesting and relevant for this discussion.

Soo, I am sitting here getting my weakly fix of Nature and run across this :

Nature , | doi:10.1038/nature07404;
Generation of pluripotent stem cells from adult human testis
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature07404.html

I am sure this story will be all over news soon (or it should be). To make the story short a bunch of Germans found a way to isolate cells very similar to embryonic stem cells from human testis. They cannot call them embryonic because they are not derived from embryos but quick and dirty functional tests suggest that they are pretty darn close

THe ramifications of this are pretty interesting. 1) you don\'t have to destroy embryo; 2) if it you are creating a replacement organ you will be doing it from YOUR OWN (well at least for males at this point) cells. Clinically it is rather important, because you solve donor problem and tissue incompatibility for at least half of the population.
It is also rather convenient, because males produce these cells pretty much all their life

This is interesting development that, personally, I will be following.
 
Back To Top
Top