The deal about stem cell research

[zarikdon]

Now prior to listening to Ron Reagan Jr.'s speech last night at the DNC, I thought that embryonic stem cells basically come from baby fetuses that are in the womb. Opponents to the work generally refer to the fact that the process of extracting these stem cells destroys the embryo, thus linking it to abortion. The vague impression I had for this was something like a needle being inserted into a woman and them sucking out a piece of the embryo.

As it turns out (and as you might realize after a little thinking), this impression is false. There's no way that this procedure would be practical (it adds unnecessary health risk, and it's a little too close to abortion for political comfort), and scientists don't use it. Instead, what usually happens is they artificially inseminate an egg in a test tube or culture, let it undergo several cell divisions, and then extract the cells.

Why is this different from doing it in the womb? Well, for one thing, these fertilized eggs have no hope for development; they're stuck on some plastic or glass, and left to their own devices they will cease to be viable. It's guaranteed. I can at least understand why some people oppose abortions on moral grounds. When you have an embryo developing inside a woman, as more and more time passes, the embryo is going to become more and more "human." There's no objective criteria to tell when, but at least we can all probably agree that at some point it's no longer a cluster of cells but instead a human baby. The opposite is true for the embryos they use in stem cell research. As more and more time passes, the embryo is actually going to be farther and farther away from being a viable baby. Cell death is assured for them, with or without stem cell extraction. To say that this is like abortion is akin to saying that masturbation kills babies. Maybe religious Christians would agree to that; there's a Biblical passage relating to it after all... but I don't really know. However, I'd like to think that the average person would be able to distinguish between aborting a developing fetus, and hastening the inevitable death of an embryo in vitro.

The bigger problem, in my mind, is that the vast majority of Americans probably don't know about the process they use to obtain stem cells, just like I didn't before last night. To tell the truth, the only thing I knew about it was what I gathered from a South Park episode. You know, the one where Christopher Reeve grabs fetuses and sucks out their spinal material to heal himself? That's a gross perversion of the truth, by any standard... but it's images like that which stick in the mind. Anyway, after finding out more about it, I just can't see any excuse for not fully funding stem cell research, especially on moral grounds. Maybe there are some people who disagree out there, and I'd love to hear from them, but I hope that I can at least inform some people about the topic with this post

[Usufruct]

Good post, I saw the speech too. I am all for stem cell research, and I get angry when people say they're against it. The potential benefits far outweigh the... wait, there are no downfalls...

[Gorny]

There was an episode of Star Trek : Enterprise the week before last that dealt with that. Good story.

[Eiger]

This thread could be headed for a long road as a similar one did over on the WoW otf: http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=215086

[Soulstones]

This thread could be headed for a long road as a similar one did over on the WoW otf: http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=215086


why the hell is there a wow otf? this otf and that are the same thing...correct?

[zarikdon]

This thread could be headed for a long road as a similar one did over on the WoW otf: http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=215086

It's quite long... is it worth reading? I read the first page or two, skipped to end, saw the long references to Aquinas (who isn't worth thinking about, IMO), and decided to stop reading.

[Steve_Kow]

I just can't see any excuse for not fully funding stem cell research, especially on moral grounds.


There are nine private research laboratories conducting stem cell research in the U.S, including one at Harvard University. So, you're going to be writing them a check right?

[Technetium]

Ronald Reagan's son is a Dem? WTF?

[SaroDarksbane]

One of them is, I think. The other isn't.

[zarikdon]

There are nine private research laboratories conducting stem cell research in the U.S, including one at Harvard University. So, you're going to be writing them a check right?

Sure, once I get off my stipend. Which is, incidentally, also funded by your tax dollars. I'd work in the field myself, actually, if I weren't so thoroughly trained in other areas.

Of course, I'm sure you'll deny yourself the benefits of better medical treatment that come from stem cell reasearch since you didn't underwrite their development. :uhhuh:

But for a serious discussion, when people argue that private funding is adequate (because the market would allocate more money if it wasn't), they generally forget the fact that businesses both typically undervalue fundamental scientific research because of the discounting in time, and also lack the resources and capability to direct large research projects. This is most important when we're talking about development in new fields, when the risk of investment is high and every business has a large disincentive to be the first to lay out money. In such a case, government funding can provide a jump start that'll accelerate growth. As time passes, businesses can take over more and more of the work, going from R (research) to D (development), so to speak. And in fact, that's what you see in the marketplace. Businesses are more suited for applying the results of fundamental research and bringing products to market. You don't see government funding going towards designing the next chipset, for example. This sort of model holds not only on the national level, but also the international level. The ITER project for international fusion research is carried out through a large multi-government group because the risk of any one country going it alone is high. No one country wants to be left holding the bag if the project is a bust. However, all the governments recognize that the overall benefits for successful research are extremely desirable, especially if the risk is minimized by collaboration, and so that's what they do. The difference between a cooperative and a noncooperative optimum, if you prefer to look at it that way.

In fact, in the US, the government has funded the vast majority of fundamental scientific research since WWII, which arguably demonstrated the importance of having a strong national science program in the first place. FDR and Congress were so impressed by the contributions of physicists (and scientists in general) to the war effort that they realized that scientific development is itself a public good. Unfortunately, it seems that memories fade rather quickly, if people have already forgotten the benefits of fundamental research. Stem cell research is a field that's clearly only in the beginning stages. Businesses see no substantial benefit to putting money into the area because the road to product development is so long at this stage. As such, the funding role should primarily be taken up by the government. I'm sure that once stem cell research goes on for another decade or so, businesses will be taking up more and more of the burden and bring those treatments to market.


Ronald Reagan's son is a Dem? WTF?

I think he prefers to be labeled indepedent, at least in the past, but I think that he's come out fairly anti-Bush in this election because of Iraq and the stem cell thing. Ron Jr.'s speech was actually entirely about stem cell research. Nancy's also a big proponent, but I'm sure she'd never address the DNC.

[th5418]

Yes, I agree. Stem cell research/cloning should be fully funded. However we should have limits of what to clone... Humans of course shouldn't be cloned. That would be a little freaky..

[Anumati]

Humans of course shouldn't be cloned. That would be a little freaky..

why? a clone is just a geneticlly identical person, like an identical twin... except probably younger... twins happen by accident all the time, so what's wrong with making one on purpose?

[dantose]

why? a clone is just a geneticlly identical person, like an identical twin... except probably younger... twins happen by accident all the time, so what's wrong with making one on purpose?
clones are generally very short lived due to illnesses associated with the shortening of DNA as people age (DNA used in cloning is "older" DNA and thus has already been shortened to a degree. Thus, it is less tollerant to continued shortening as the clone ages)

Until we fix this problem we should only make humans the old fashoned way. Besides, that's more fun than science anyway...

[th5418]

Would you want a clone who has the same thinking capability as you and same physical ability as you out there doing who knows what... Framing you for everything? Not me. But everyone has different opinions

[Akira]

Well unless you are alot smarter than everyone th, i would say not only are there people with equal mental and phyiscal capabilites, but there are people out there with greater mental and physical capabilites running around doing who knows what. You should kill them, fast.

[Anakha1]

Would you want a clone who has the same thinking capability as you and same physical ability as you out there doing who knows what... Framing you for everything? Not me. But everyone has different opinions

That's a misconception. Clones are not identical to their donors. They have similiarities but are essentially like non-identical brothers. Their development is still affected by randomness in growth and development as well as upbringing and environmental factors.

I think Stem cell research should be fully developed and delved into. There is no harm that can come from it and a world of good that can.

[Isolde212]

I used to have my reservations about stem cell research but after reading this thread and getting a little clarification of the process I feel more reassured....although my opinions of in vitro fertilization hasn't changed.
In my opinion I don't think that fertilization should take place in a lab. However I don't feel that extracting embryonic cells from a women should be allowed either. As much as I realize the potential breakthroughs that stem cell research are extremely beneficial to society, I would have to say I am still on the fence post with this one.

[th5418]

Hmm, okay wrong misconception. Too much Simpsons, thought you meant full body clone.... haha nevemrind

[Ace_wanderer]

It really annoys me how people think and try to be cool by saying this and that are bad. Especially teenagers who have no idea what there talking about,complaining that scientists are evil.

There is nothing wrong with stem cell research and the like, you think scientists are heartless.

I heard a scientists say once in a documentry that the opposing side is fighting with propaganda but the people for say stem call research are also fighting back with propaganda.

For instance an advertisment showing 2 babies,and saying which one are we going to cut up for parts.

That is just wrong and stupid.

[jimmyboy]

It peaves me that the far right Christian groups are so anti-genetic research because it contradicts with God's law, when they've shut up for the last 50 years when our military dabled in genetic research to support their bio-warfare programs.

But I have 2 nice film for you guys "The boys from Brazil" and "Gattaca."