1
   

Stem cell research v. organ/tissue donation

 
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 11:46 pm
Perhaps this has already been mentioned but how about this for a thought experiment:

Let's assume that those against the use of stem cells originating from boomerang's embryos have no moral problems with organ transplantation from deceased individuals. Additionally, let us assume science has advanced to where a cell from any organ in the body can now be turned into a stem cell and then further differentiated into any type of cell tissue (why not, they created Dolly, a whole sheep, did they not?).

Would the anti-stem cell research camp have a moral justification to stop such a procedure whereby live cells from a deceased individual could be made to produce specific organs destined for implantation to save other's lives? Indeed, would they, like President Bush, "error on the side of life" even given the possibility that these cells might possibly be used to clone another human? If not, Why?

JM
0 Replies
 
skinywhtboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 08:47 am
Life
I think that it all boils down to when a fetus is considered "life". Or what you perceive as "life". Is it right when the egg and sperm connect? Is it 3 months of development? Is it right at birth? If so then women everywhere could be artificially inseminating themsleves and selling their fetusus for money. Quite scary but quite possible.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 05:25 am
Quote:
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 03:05 pm
In reference to Gelisgesti's posted article:

As I have stated before, either the U.S. gets in this game or others will and then hold the technology and subsequent patents. As Health consumers we can pay now by investing in the future or pay much more at a later date to other countries for the use of their technologies. Since the U.S.'s major economic edge is in technological innovation and less, nowadays, in manufacturing, the later course is not a wise one.

However, there are some bright lights that continue to shine through the medieval efforts of the religious right--these only further encouraged by politicians' short sighted attempts to pander to this block of voters for the sake of political expediency. Some states, such as California and New Jersey, have set aside funds for research in this area. Additionally, it is interesting, if not just anecdotal, to see people, such as the Reagans, come out in favor of this research once their life experience provides a view through a somewhat different lense.

I have every belief that the tide will turn on this issue. Sooner or later government sponsored research will allow more of the U.S.'s best minds to join the effort. The question lies in who will lead and develop this technology and who will have to go hat in hand and beg to pay for its benefits when it comes of age. The irrational indictment of those researchers as killers is the same as that which places such monikers upon researchers who use animals to advance medical science. It touches the hearts of the uninformed, caring, and squeamish, but seems to deny the obvious benefits afforded to all humans.

Respectfully,

JM
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 05:41 pm
Thank you James for adding your voice.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 06:14 am
Quote:


The Stem-Cell Also-Ran: America
The Bush Administration's restrictions on U.S. research will inflict major pain down the road as other countries keep advancing


It's a great time to be a stem-cell researcher -- unless you're working in most U.S. laboratories. In quick succession, foreign labs have announced a series of major breakthroughs, developments that move scientists a step closer to cures for a range of illnesses. On May 20, British researchers revealed that they had cloned a human embryo. The same day, a Korean team announced success in creating stem cells from embryos cloned from people with diseases. Such cells could then theoretically be used as treatments for those people. And earlier this year, Japanese researchers reported that they had used stem cells to cure Parkinson's-like disease in monkeys.
Advertisement


These overseas triumphs are a reminder that restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research in the U.S., as well as many state and federal threats to ban much of the research, are hindering the pace of research in America. As part of an ongoing lobbying effort, 37 university presidents and chancellors sent Congress a letter on May 23, arguing that progress in foreign labs is "an indication that U.S. scientists are being hobbled in their pursuit of cures and therapies using this promising research."

A day later, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would relax the limits on research. But with President George W. Bush threatening to veto the bill if it clears Congress, it looks like U.S. researchers will have to resign themselves to "playing catch-up," says Charles Jennings, executive director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, which has raised $30 million in private funding.

CONSTANT THREAT. One advantage foreign scientists have is higher levels of government funding. Korea alone is estimated to be spending more than $100 million a year on embryonic stem-cell work, compared to a paltry $24 million last year from the National Institutes of Health. In addition, several countries, such as Korea and Britain, explicitly allow the creation of human embryos as a source of stem cells. In the U.S., there's a constant threat that such an approach could be banned.

As a result, researchers fear the U.S. is at a serious competitive disadvantage. The effects won't be seen immediately. It will take years for researchers to learn how to transform stem cells into new heart muscle, neurons, pancreatic cells, or other key tissues consistently enough to meet Food & Drug Administration requirements for the safety of new treatments.

But the research will have more shorter-term applications, such as creating cells that the pharmaceutical industry can use to test new drugs. And already, researchers are staking claims to valuable intellectual property. By falling behind, experts say, the U.S. could lose out on the eventual commercial applications to companies in Korea, Singapore, India, and other countries that are rushing ahead with the science.

"MODEL-T" CELLS. That would be a stunning reversal, since the field was pioneered in the U.S. American researchers were the first to create long-lived cultures of stem cells, called "stem-cell lines" in 1998, and the scientific community immediately saw vast potential. Stem cells are undifferentiated progenitors -- able to become many different parts of the body. Researchers believe, for example, it should be possible to transform stem cells into the insulin-producing cells that are lost in diabetes, or the dopamine-making neurons lost in Parkinson's Disease, thus curing those illnesses.

But in August, 2001, Bush, citing an aversion to destroying human embryos in the process of extracting stem cells, restricted federally funded research to only existing stem-cells lines. That had a chilling effect on research in the U.S. Those cell lines created before August, 2001-- of which only 22 are useful -- are "the model-T versions," explains Dr. Robert Goldstein, chief scientific officer at the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, which now gives two-thirds of its grant money for embryonic stem cell research to foreign scientists.

The bill passed by the House would allow scientists to create more cell lines from thousands of embryos now slated for destruction at in vitro fertilization clinics. While that could bring several hundred more stem-cell lines into play, the bill "is like getting a foot in the door and trying to open it a little, when other countries are building huge gates," says cloning expert Jose Cibelli, professor of animal biotechnology at Michigan State University.

TALENT DRIVE. And Bush vows to veto the bill anyway. "I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is -- I'm against that," Bush reminded reporters just last week.

The outlook isn't totally bleak. The federal government is spending several hundred million dollars on work with stem cells in mice and with adult stem cells. And some states and private funders are stepping into the void left by the federal government on human embryonic stem cells. Last November, California voted to spend $3 billion over 10 years. The Harvard Stem Cell Institute has raised $30 million from foundations and private donors, and is creating its own stem-cell lines. The Starr Foundation is giving $50 million to three New York City research centers over three years for stem-cell work.

The support is enabling U.S. scientists to continue to make significant strides. At Johns Hopkins stem-cell pioneer John Gearhart is successfully creating heart cells that could be used to treat heart disease. "You cannot underestimate the talent present in this country," says Gearhart. "This is the group that has led the world."

These efforts will keep the U.S. in the game -- but not in the unchallenged lead. "We're really in the Dark Ages," charges Cibelli. "We're failing at the core -- at providing the federal money that would lead to new biotechnology and new companies able to take this to patients." Unless the Administration changes its stance, many breakthroughs will continue to come from outside the U.S.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 06:48 am
Re: Life
skinywhtboy wrote:
I think that it all boils down to when a fetus is considered "life". Or what you perceive as "life". Is it right when the egg and sperm connect? Is it 3 months of development? Is it right at birth? If so then women everywhere could be artificially inseminating themsleves and selling their fetusus for money. Quite scary but quite possible.


Technically, they're all alive. The sperm, the eggs, the embryo. Every day, the male testes generate spermatazoa, which are killed off if not used. Even the process of insemination results in the death of millions of sperm cells.

Hence the notion that every sperm is precious is false. If they were, why would the biological be system be set up such that so many die?

What this debate, however, all boils down to is what is defined as human.

Is a sperm cell human? Is an egg human?

Is an embryo human, despite the fact that its technically missing a few things that a normal human being would have?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2020 at 09:50:55