Stem Cell Research

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 27 Aug 2004 15:04

So Germany has done it, they have successfully grown a jaw bone out of bone marrow and stem cell technology. The jaw was grown in the man's back to replace the lower jaw he lost to cancer. He took his first bite of food in over 9 years, a sausage sandwich.

I am seriously impressed. My question is, what your thoughts on playing God, researching stem cells, etc... are and if it is a good or bad thing to make such leaps in technology?

Personally I disagree with the current administrations view on the technology and look to scientists to use their best judgement rather than ignorant ass politicians to make educated decisions about the use of such technology.

What do you think?

zachatree · Post by **zachatree** » 27 Aug 2004 15:37

yes, i seen this

i think this is the begining to the end.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 27 Aug 2004 15:40

The president is against stem cell research, but has only passed legislation on stem cells derived from embryos. It's sad because these cells have the potential to be any organ, while adult stem cells are already committed to a tissue type.

The only researchers in the US working on embryonic stem cells now have to be funded privately. I don't agree with this decision as it took the people who do research because they have a passion for it out of the loop, and made research strictly profit motivated.

I read the article on the jaw bone etc . . . It's cool, but not even the unholy grail. The jaw was made by growing differentiated cells in a mold . . . not quite as cool as growing a jaw that "knows" the shape to grow into. I guess the coolest part of it was they used cells from the mans own bone marrow to grow the bone.

I posted my views on this Earlier today on slashdot and due to technical errors and lack of coffee got raped by the admins.

I believe the decision made by the president was made for religous views. I don't like christian extremist who want to take the United States medical research back into the dark ages and more than I like muslim extremist who keep women as pets.

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 27 Aug 2004 22:38

i think things like stem cell research should be allowed, but i dont know if i was president that i would want to make peoples tax money go to fund it when there view of it is that it is equal to murder.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 27 Aug 2004 22:54

So what kind of stem cells enabled him to grow a new jaw?

My knowledge of embryonic stem cells is limited.

I have heard that adult stem cells have allowed several scientific advances, AND that embryonic cells have been less successful.

So which is more useful?

I can't make a credible assessment of the different types of stem cells advantages, but whenever i hear the phrase "stem cells", I immediately think, "Hate Bush".

For some reason, I think the stem cell argument is nothing more than a way to attack Bush for some kind of religious reason.

The argument serves double duty. It allows a way to support abortion AND attack religious beliefs of the Prez.

If the forum has an expert on the subject, please speak up.

At the least, I could make huge profits by growing high-demand body parts in the extra space behind my left arm.
-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 27 Aug 2004 22:59

Come to think of it, you don't need to grow extra body parts, you can just harvest them from political prisoners. They cant complain.

-n

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 30 Aug 2004 09:01

Well, here's my take on this:

Stem cells have amazing potential. using adult ones, fine, not a problem.

Embryonic (sp?) stem cells are more flexable. But because it's from an embrio (again, sp?), there should be a VERY limited supply to them. What you get ultimately depends on what is wrong. The way to get the embrios is from women who are having serious complications with the pregnancy, or who may die from giving birth.

I've also tossed around in my head that a few couples, trios, or gang bangs, whatever, could sign up to create the embryonic stem cells. They would have to sign a wavier disclaiming they know what they are doing and the concequences of it.

This, from what I see, is the only acceptable thing that comes out of abortion.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Aug 2004 21:08

Well I'm completely pro abortion and I have no problems with stem cell research and using embryonic stem cells. I don't like the idea of paying people for stem cells because it creates a market for them and the people who need the money the most will be the people doing it - ie you will be exploiting poor people - unless you pay a great deal. I don't think getting enough cells is really a problem at the moment though - it's just a matter of being more efficient and using all the cells that are throwen away.

For years people have been working to find a cure to cancer and many other diseases - now that we finally are on the doorstep of such a cure we should at least explore the possibilities. If once we have the cure people think it's immoral or wrong they can choose to die of cancer rather than accept the treatment if they like.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 31 Aug 2004 15:45

I can understand being against aborted fetus stem cell harvesting (I can see the argument, not that I agree or disagree as this is too new for me to pick a side yet).

Yet I can't help but wonder as an ignorant wonderer, what if they used donated sperm and eggs to create embryos in petri dishes and extract the cells from those [reaching for the quotes] "EXPERIMENTS". No harm no foul, right?

I mean technically it is a living organism, but so is a tree and I can extract whatever the hell I want out of sapling.

But that is getting off the subject.

From what I've read Bush wants private companies to do the research, rather than federally funded research. Who benefits from this? Private companies? The government? Who?

Seems to me that the private sector can get away with a lot more than the gov. in this area of research simply because the media isn't watching the private sector as much as Tax Dollar Funded Projects (like Iraq). It also frees them from liability should something messed up happen. The company gets sued not the gov.

Other the other hand, the private sector having this freedom so to speak, could use this technology to build BAD things, if you get my meaning. So I can see cause for alarm in that respect as well.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 31 Aug 2004 16:09

The private sector is motivated by one thing. It's not curing diseases. It's not helping people. It's not a huge house in the hamptons. It's profit for the share holders.

Do you want you medical research direct by what's profitable (Obesity, erectile dysfunction, etc ) or do you want you medical research directed towards the major threats to human health, and new cures (degenerative diseases, cancer, joint replacements, limb regeneration etc) ?

In summary it's the difference between getting the next polio vaccine, and getting the next viagra, IMHO.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 31 Aug 2004 20:02

FlexThis wrote: Yet I can't help but wonder as an ignorant wonderer, what if they used donated sperm and eggs to create embryos in petri dishes and extract the cells from those [reaching for the quotes] "EXPERIMENTS". No harm no foul, right?

Holy test tube babys batman! I didn't even think of that! That, I don't see as being a problem really. But the question of the matter is would they be as good as the embryonic stem cells of the naturally created embryo?

That seems like a better option than abortion for them by all means. But if there is an abortion, they should ask the woman if they can donate the embryo to science. Not that they would get paid because of the decision...

Then again, you can also argue the point that the stem cells (provided it's a human at that point) would still be living, just not as a sentient being. What do you guys think of that?