Stem Cell Research

Do you think Stem Cell Research should continue?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 26 86.7%
  • No.

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • I don't care either way.

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • Total voters
    30

Lassan

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
76
Points
0
Location
The Netherlands
Hi, we were studying about stem cells in biology today, and looked at some ethical issues regarding it..
I was just wondering what the general consensus was, so please just vote in the poll.
Are you in favour of Stem Cell Research or against it?
 
Last edited:
i think we need to make a clear distinction between embryonic stem cells (which fuels the ethical debate) and somatic (adult) ones that also have great therapeutic potential (and which i don't see any valid reason to be against).

i believe that stem cell therapy is one of the greatest advancements in human history. but that's not to say i'm "100%" for our current practice, specifically when it comes to embryonic cells.

the ideal situation for utilising embryonic stem cells is to extract them without damaging the embryo. and we are looking into methods on how to go about this, and it is possible.

in the meantime, however, i fully support using embryos that are already created and would otherwise be discarded (or frozen useless) because of IVF treatment. i think this is a sort of a "lesser of two evils" approach, but i really hate to attribute the word "evil" to research that could potentially save billions of lives in the future.
 
Well said ^^
There are of course ethical problems with the research. But as with all scientific research it depends on the standards upheld by the people doing the work.
It holds great hope for curing diseases that currently has no treatment, especially when it comes to neurological diseases.
But this is something that lies in the future, and there is a lot of work that has to be done before reaching a point where this actually can help people.
 
I don't think I can vote honestly. I do care but I don't have enough information to make an educated opinion. I've heard a lot both good and bad before but can't accept having to destroy a embryo even to save hundreds. Is my life that much more important then that first life that didn't ask to die?

Our history is full of that example though. It's basically how we've managed to survive at all. Trial and error - make it better later. Let time find the best practice but do what we can now to get the advances that are needed to make it better. Blah hard topic.
 
Quoting arxter: "in the meantime, however, i fully support using embryos that are already created and would otherwise be discarded (or frozen useless) because of IVF treatment. i think this is a sort of a "lesser of two evils" approach, but i really hate to attribute the word "evil" to research that could potentially save billions of lives in the future."

(Sorry, my quote function isn't working properly)

This is something I also agree with if monitored ethically, "if" being the word of concern. If a parent, sibling, spouse, or child of mine were afflicted with a paralyzing or life threatening disease, and if destruction of an embryo was already a predicted outcome to occur, I would not have a problem utilizing whatever was available to save someone from suffering while alive.

jmo, and this is a without a doubt a very delicate and "morally" sensitive topic to many.
 
today's news..



'Ethical' stem cell creation hope

262tssx.png


The ability to create stem cell treatments without using embryos is a step closer, say researchers.

A UK and Canadian team have manipulated human skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells without using viruses - making them safer for use in humans.

The cells are reprogrammed by the insertion of four genes which are then removed once the process is complete, they report in Nature.

While a significant step it is early days, the Edinburgh-based experts say.

Much of the work on stem cells has focused on those taken from embryos as they have an unlimited capacity to become any of the 220 types of cell in the human body - a so-called pluripotent state.

But campaigners have objected to their use on the grounds that it is unethical to destroy embryos in the name of science.


It is a step towards the practical use of reprogrammed cells in medicine, perhaps even eliminating the need for human embryos as a source of stem cells

Dr Keisuke Kaji, study leader


In 2007, teams in Japan and the US managed to genetically modify skin cells to be pluripotent, opening the way for a new source of stem cells for use in research.

However, the technique used viruses to genetically modify the cells, which means there was a risk they could become cancerous and so would not be safe for medical use.

The latest study reports a way of delivering foreign genes to reprogramme the cells without using viruses in mouse and human cells.

Furthermore, the team was able to remove the genes afterwards.

Efficiency

Study leader Dr Keisuke Kaji, from the Medical Research Council Centre for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said nobody, including himself, had thought it was really possible.

"It is a step towards the practical use of reprogrammed cells in medicine, perhaps even eliminating the need for human embryos as a source of stem cells," he said.

But he added they needed to improve the efficiency of the process.

Co-author Professor Andras Nagy, from the University of Toronto, added: "We hope that these stem cells will form the basis for treatment for many diseases and conditions that are currently considered incurable."

Professor Sir Ian Wilmut, director of Edinburgh centre where the research was done and the creator of Dolly the sheep, said it would still take time before these cells could be given to patients.

"Crucially, we need to have a method to generate the desired cell types from these stem cells.

"But I believe the team has made great progress and combining this work with that of other scientists working on stem cell differentiation, there is hope that the promise of regenerative medicine could soon be met."

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, head of the MRC National Institute for Medical Research, said the research was an exciting step in the right direction but there was still a long road ahead.

"For the time being I think it rather premature to suggest that their work will completely remove the need to derive human stem cells from embryos."

He added there was still a lot to learn from human embryonic stem cells in order to know whether stem cells reprogrammed from adult cells are truly useful or not.

Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "This is ethical stem cell research at its best, with embryonic-type stem cells derived successfully from adult tissue without involving human embryos."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/7914976.stm

Published: 2009/03/01 18:06:56 GMT

© BBC MMIX
 
Last edited:
news_logo.gif

Obama ends stem cell funding ban
US President Barack Obama has lifted restrictions on federal funding for research on new stem cell lines.
Mr Obama signed an executive order in a major reversal of US policy, pledging to "vigorously support" new research.
Ex-President George W Bush blocked the use of any government money to fund research on human embryonic stem cell lines created after 9 August 2001.
Scientists say stem cell research will lead to medical breakthroughs, but many religious groups oppose the research.
Announcing the new policy, Mr Obama said he was authorising a change "so many scientists and researchers and doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for and fought for these past eight years".
Opinion polls suggest most Americans support stem cell research, reports the BBC's Richard Lister, in Washington, but the National Right to Life Committee described the move as a "slippery slope". It has also been condemned by the Vatican.

"At this moment the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and it should not be overstated," Mr Obama said.


We will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction
US President Barack Obama

"But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand and possibly cure some of our most devastating diseases and conditions."
He invoked the example of the late Superman actor Christopher Reeve, who became a staunch advocate of stem cell research after being paralysed in a horse-riding accident.
Analysts say Mr Obama's decision could also lead Congress to overturn a ban on spending tax dollars to create embryos.
That ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, has been in place since 1996 and renewed every year by Congress.
But Democrat Congresswoman Diana DeGette told the New York Times newspaper that several anti-abortion colleagues were open to the possibility of reversing the ban if this was necessary to help research.


The stem cell decision is indeed a repudiation of a Bush policy but it is more: the strange death of socially conservative America, which began in the mid-terms in 2006, continues apace


Before signing the executive order, Mr Obama said he hoped Congress would act on a bipartisan basis "to further support this research".
Stem cells are cells with the capacity to turn into any other type of human cell, be it bone, muscle or nerve cell.
One embryo can provide a limitless supply because the cell lines can be grown indefinitely.
But the use of human embryonic stem cells in research is controversial with some campaigners saying it is unethical.
The practice of creating embryos is routine in private clinics, but the ban put constraints on federal researchers even before the restrictions imposed by former President Bush, forcing them to use embryos left over from fertility treatments.
Correspondents say the policy change is part of President Obama's pledge to make clear that his administration wants scientific research to be free from political interference.


Announcing his development, he described himself as a man of faith who had carefully weighed the implications of the decision, and said moving forward required a "delicate balance".
Like Mr Bush, President Obama has profound Christian beliefs but he has defined the issue in terms of integrity.
To that end, he also signed a memorandum directing the White House's science and technology office to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government.
And he vowed that only research meeting strict ethical guidelines would be allowed, stressing that under no circumstances would stem cells be used for research into human cloning.
"It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society," Mr Obama said.
Researchers 'freed'
The move to lift the ban on federal funding was welcomed by stem cell researchers but criticised by opponents and social conservatives.
Peter Wilderotter, president of the Christopher and Dana Foundation, praised Mr Obama for "removing politics from science" and freeing researchers.
President Bush and other social conservatives argued that the embryos are human life and therefore should not be destroyed. Mr Bush twice vetoed congressional attempts to have the ban lifted.
Following Mr Obama's announcement, John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, said the president had undermined "protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us".








Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7929690.stm

Published: 2009/03/09 17:58:19 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Print Sponsor
BBC.adverts.write("printableversionsponsorship");

BBC.adverts.show("printableversionsponsorship");
 
US President Barack Obama has lifted restrictions on federal funding for research on new stem cell lines.
I don't think it's really the fed's business to fund stem cell research. The government should not stand in the way of stem cell research from being conducted, but they don't need to fund it. Seems like a waste of money. If the medical community and the scientific community feel there's good enough reason to conduct more stem cell research then the funds will come in. Don't you worry about that.
 
Last edited:
Just a commment to the avove^^

The thing about leaving research only to companies with the primary motivation of earning money on their investment is that their focus will be on illnesses and treatments that are financially acceptable. That means that a lot of devestating illenesses that has not the potential of earning them money will not recieve attention.

If there are too few patiens suffering from one particular disease that will not get attention, even if the suffering and problems that this disease has on an individual level is hearbreaking.

When it comes to medical companies, ethics and money you don`t need to look further then to AIDS treatment to see the picture.

Another thing is that what the companies earn most money on is medicines that people has to use for the rest of their life- not something that cures people, if you understand what I mean.

This is good reasons for why some research should be done by people hired by "the people" rather then by private companies. The best thing is if there is a mix of research done, and strict rules on how to do the reseach and how this will benefit people.

But hey- I come from a "sosialist" country, sort of- so my view is that medicine and treatments should not be dependent on an individuals financial status. To even out the economical differences in a population I think there has to be the responsebility of the state. Not private companies that has a financial interest when it comes to peoples health...
 
Just a commment to the avove^^

The thing about leaving research only to companies with the primary motivation of earning money on their investment is that their focus will be on illnesses and treatments that are financially acceptable. That means that a lot of devestating illenesses that has not the potential of earning them money will not recieve attention.

If there are too few patiens suffering from one particular disease that will not get attention, even if the suffering and problems that this disease has on an individual level is hearbreaking.

When it comes to medical companies, ethics and money you don`t need to look further then to AIDS treatment to see the picture.

Another thing is that what the companies earn most money on is medicines that people has to use for the rest of their life- not something that cures people, if you understand what I mean.

This is good reasons for why some research should be done by people hired by "the people" rather then by private companies. The best thing is if there is a mix of research done, and strict rules on how to do the reseach and how this will benefit people.

But hey- I come from a "sosialist" country, sort of- so my view is that medicine and treatments should not be dependent on an individuals financial status. To even out the economical differences in a population I think there has to be the responsebility of the state. Not private companies that has a financial interest when it comes to peoples health...
100% spot-on.

and i can't think of more (un)ethically corrupt capitalist systems than U.S. healthcare and its pharmaceutical business (which also happens to be leading the world market).
 
If there are too few patiens suffering from one particular disease that will not get attention, even if the suffering and problems that this disease has on an individual level is hearbreaking.
If there are too few patients suffering from one particular disease than do you think the government will pay it any more attention that private investors?

This is good reasons for why some research should be done by people hired by "the people" rather then by private companies. The best thing is if there is a mix of research done, and strict rules on how to do the reseach and how this will benefit people.
"The people" really just means the government and I don't think it's anymore comforting to have the government conducting stem cell research than private companies. Think about every single time the government has ever shown any interest in scientific research and developing technology. Historically, the only reason has been war. So when you put it into that context, the government conducting stem cell research is not at all a comforting thing. Do you really think the government is moral and ethical enough not to use stem cell technology to "enhance" soldiers or create clone armies. It sounds a bit ridiculous, but what other reason would the government have for conducting stem cell research than war. Just look through history. Pretty much every technological advancement has been for the purpose of war.

But hey- I come from a "sosialist" country, sort of- so my view is that medicine and treatments should not be dependent on an individuals financial status. To even out the economical differences in a population I think there has to be the responsibility of the state. Not private companies that has a financial interest when it comes to peoples health...
I come from a country that provides public health too. So I've experienced public health and IMO private health works better. But not if the government is sticking it's fingers in the health industry. The way I look at is that for every private company that puts profit above everything else is a private charity that's helping those who get screwed over. I want to replace the government with people, members of the community, providing charity voluntarily to those who genuinely need it because I think it's more effective. I think government should get out of the way of people helping people. That's my opinion.
 
I propably have a more positive experience with public health care then you have.
I am not saying that its perfect, but this is how it works in my country:

You are assigned to one doctor that is "yours", witch means that you have a primary contact that follows up your medical status.
If you do get sick, you pay up to a sertain amount ( aprox. 220 USD)each year- everything above that is free. That also goes for a lot of medicine.
Additional medical expence can be written of tax ( if you need to rebuild your house, special diet etc...).
If you need a wheelchair or any other equipent you "borrow" this- no expences. And if something needs to be replaced/ repaired, they are responsible for it.
If you are unhappy with the diagnosis, you have a right to a second opinion. You have the freedom to shoose the hospital you want to be treated in according to their expertice.

If you do have the money, nothing is stopping you from buying additional services.
And nothing is stopping people from volunteering to help others either.

As I said; its not perfect but I have experienced this system first hand due to my husband becoming terminally ill ( ALS- neurological disease).
When it came to treatment in hospital the doctors could not have been more helpful or more dedicated.
He lived at home, with a team of nurses for many years. We could never afford that if we had to pay ourself.
All of this did not come for "free"- a lot of work was done by me, family and friends. But reading the stories about people in the US with this disease, without having insurance etc. was heartbreaking.

I will defend going for government responsebility because if they mess up, they can be removed by the people. Big corporations in the medicine industry are not up for election.
What I think is the best way to go is to have a mix of government an private responsebility. Keeping it a balanced society.
I hope we manage to keep it this way here.
I believe strongly in evening out the social differences, to make this world a little bit more fair.
 
Well thanks for explaining how your health system works. What country are you from by the way? Here in Australia, I'm not as familiar with our health system as you are of yours. But I would like to make a comment on something you said.
I will defend going for government responsebility because if they mess up, they can be removed by the people. Big corporations in the medicine industry are not up for election.
I find you have far more choice in the private sector than in government. If you are dissatisfied with a company's service you simply go to someone else. That how capitalism works. But in government, I don't know what it's like where your from, but here we really on have two major parties. You have all these names on the ballot which give you the illusion of choice but whoever wins an election, they will only really serve one of the two major parties. There's no real choice in government. If you have private health insurance and you don't like the service, you give your business to another private health insurer. It's a simple system really.
 
A two party system makes it more diffuicult in my opinion. Here we have ( if I remember correctly!) 7 political parties, four of them are quite big but they are in general divided by having a mainly sosialist democratic fundament or a more conservative liberalist ( don`t know if I use the correct definition here but if you compare to the UK its either Laybour/ left wing or the conservative/ right wing).

The good thing about this is that no party is so strong that they can push their opinion through without asking the people. and they have to bargain, fight and build alliances with other parties witch makes it less likely that any extreme points will get through.
The negative side is that no politics will be put through without a lot of negotiations. And as people have different opinions, it takes a lot of time to reach a conclusion, and there is a tendency that politicians become too populistic- telling people what they think they want to hear instead of being true to their own political program.
But this also means that no ones position is "safe". They realy have to work to get where they want to!! And public opinion is a strong force.
If people are not pleased, they are out. That has happend a lot of times!
No need for any type of scandals about sex, etc... One of the major political leaders of the concervative party is living in a gay relationship, and has done for many years (compared to UK and US that has never been a subject).
Politicians that has to go has been forced to if they have abused their power or in many cases twisted the system when it comes to benefits etc. There are strong moral codes when it comes to people lying about things, recieving more money then they are entitled to etc....



A good example of the public power is that we still are not a member of EU.
There has been two major polls, and the people has said no.
Nothing any politician can do about that, even if the major parties pleaded with us to say yes!

The politics are also influenced by two major organisations; one for private business/ business owners and one for workers.

We have no political comercials shown on TV, witch I think is great because that means that they have to do the debates and get their point across in other forums instead of sertain parties having more money then others.

I think that private health care is great for those that can afford it. But many people can not. So the freedom of choice is based on being able to pay for it. Comparing the two systems, I prefer having what we have; a combination. We can still buy an incurance that lets us have even more of a security. But if that becomes the rule, I think less fortunate people aways will be the one to suffer.
Being who I am, with my cultural background I guess its incorporated in me that we should have solidarity, equality and that those that has plenty should share with those that has less. There needs to be some sort of system that evens out the unfairness that excist.

As you say; If the health care is private it means that you can go elsewhere if you are not pleased. But so can you here, as you have the right to a second opinion and freedom as to witch hospital you want to be treated in. In many cases you can shoose to be treated abroad ( and still get the treatment covered).
I also think its important to remember that no system can be completely perfect. Most times you just have to go for "as god as it gets". And in many cases there is no cure, and then the most important issue is how to cope with the difficult times ahead. Both in terms of economy, emotional and physical/ pshycological problems.

I come from Scandinavia by the way.
And though I am happy with some things in my country, there is a lot of things I am less happy with. So don`t think I am trying to make this into some sort of "paradise". Its not.:doh:


I am going off topic here, so back on track:

In regards to stem cell research I think one of the most interesting fields is in treating neurological diseases, many of wich have no treatment options today.
As well, I think that in relation to ethical problems, its far better to have clear regulations on how the research is done then banning it altogheter ( as seems to have been a solution in some areas). Banning it will only lead to the research being done in places with less regulation and less control. Witch again often leads to treatments being less likely to be accepted by the medical society.
 
Last edited:
And about the issue of federal funding for stem cell research as opposed to private industry funding it, I think the point made that private organisations would only fund/push uses that are profitable. I feel particularly strongly about it, I guess because of the fact that my father suffers from a neuorological disorder called polymyocitis which is quite rare and makes his life hell, pain 24/7. And it of course has a direct effect on the rest of the family. It is currently uncurable, you can take what are practically steroids to sort of 'keep you going'. And like I said, it's quite rare, and I can't imagine some big company spending tons in that field. Then again, I don't expect the money from federal funding going to that specific disorder anyways, but you'd expect it to be more .. general, rather than more specific research based on what's potentially more profitable..

I realise my coherent writing skills kind of failed there at the end, but I hope ya catch my drift!
 
^^ When I did a lot of reading regarding stem cell treatment and research, I found the information on PubMed helpful. They have alot of articles. Also Karolinska in Sweden does a lot of experiments, I think. China has, as I mentioned a lot of experimental research- but I found it hard to find out how its controlled.

The Mayo clinic is of course a very good source of information.
Don`t loose hope- because some times the breakthrough comes from serendipity- pure luck by accident. Like the discovery of penicillin. They may discover something that helps less common diseases through research ment to find treatments for the more common ones.

I think its a entirely different situation for people that has had some first hand experience with the desperate hope for finding a cure- that position makes you look at stem cell research, ethics, and health care systems from a very different position.
 
Last edited:
i think we need to make a clear distinction between embryonic stem cells (which fuels the ethical debate) and somatic (adult) ones that also have great therapeutic potential (and which i don't see any valid reason to be against).

i believe that stem cell therapy is one of the greatest advancements in human history. but that's not to say i'm "100%" for our current practice, specifically when it comes to embryonic cells.

the ideal situation for utilising embryonic stem cells is to extract them without damaging the embryo. and we are looking into methods on how to go about this, and it is possible.

in the meantime, however, i fully support using embryos that are already created and would otherwise be discarded (or frozen useless) because of IVF treatment. i think this is a sort of a "lesser of two evils" approach, but i really hate to attribute the word "evil" to research that could potentially save billions of lives in the future.

Hi Arxter, thank you for making the distinction.

I personally could not vote in this poll, because the current practice of using embryonic stem cells is different from somatic. I do not support embryonic stem cell research, but I haven't yet had a reason to be against somatic stem cell research...after all, nobody is killed or dead with the latter and the stem cells are perfectly good. Embryonic stem cell research is the justification the govt. and media uses to make killing tiny babies "ok". In my book, that is not cool. People can bash me all they want with the "it's just tissue" argument. I don't care. Back himself said, "Too many children have already Gone Too Soon." I agree with him.
 
I do not want to step on any ones feelings or beliefs.

But to put this in perspective ( the research done on embryonic stem cells) I think its quite valuable to consider how our medical knowledge has evolved. If anyone think that the treatments or the discoveries that people benefit from to day does not have a dark side, they are very wrong. And I doubt that very many are aware of this. But I doubt that people would refuse treatment if they indeed knew the price paid by so many people in the past. Compared to that, research done on embryonic stem cells is a problematic but not shocking issue.

I saw a documentary about this subject a while ago, and it made me think that most great discoveries in this field has come at a great cost. Still, what we know today is to the benefit of so many.
I have problems with figuring out how to feel about this. So I am not putting anyone down when it comes to reacting emotionally towards research done on embryonic stem cells. Still, what if the treatment coming from this research can prevent more children to go too soon?
As I said earlier; I understand the issues concerning embr. stem cells. Still, if this research can help people in the future I think that is preferable compared to what else would be done to aborted fetuses. This is my opinion, and I respect that others has different opinions.
 
Last edited:
I voted "yes". This is embryonic stem cell research. This may hold the key to curing a lot of terrible diseases such as ALS, MS, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc. I am fully for this important research to continue. And the embryos involved would have been discarded anyway.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nazca-fontes/stem-cell-argument-conven_b_176493.html

First, there has been a lot of coverage around the needless creation and destruction of embryos strictly for this research. Clearly, this isn't the only, or even first, option available. By some accounts, there are currently more than 600,000 frozen fertilized eggs sitting in fertility clinics across this country. Many of these have been there for years, abandoned by couples who no longer need them but are unable to make the decision to discard them. So, they simply stop paying for storage, leaving the decision to the clinics and doctors who will likely have to discard them at some point because of the hefty costs associated with maintaining them -- including the cost of facility rental, liquid nitrogen, storage containers, nitrogen delivery and clinicians to tend to the storage process. For the clinics and doctors, the decision then comes down to discarding these leftover embryos or donating them for medical research.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top