Update Dec 26 '07: "Dolly" scientist abandons embryonic research due to skin-to-stem cell breakthrough

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: fallout man
Originally posted by: Slick5150

Yes, because unlike people such as yourselves who choose to politicize everything, I am excited by advances in medicine, regardless of where they came from. I'll leave those details to those who actually know what they're talking about, you know, the scientists?

Sweet Jesus! Stop using logic! I'm melting... meeeeeeehlllllltiiiiiingggg.

LOL, the OP's agenda is showing again eh...
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Originally posted by: hellokeith
There is nothing unethical about using discarded jews to do medical research. - Nazi scientist

fixed

WOW, that's a stretch that is remarkable even for hack suck as yourself... bravo.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: fallout man
Originally posted by: Slick5150

Yes, because unlike people such as yourselves who choose to politicize everything, I am excited by advances in medicine, regardless of where they came from. I'll leave those details to those who actually know what they're talking about, you know, the scientists?

Sweet Jesus! Stop using logic! I'm melting... meeeeeeehlllllltiiiiiingggg.

LOL, the OP's agenda is showing again eh...

Meh, it's just like PJ's posts - news is "exciting" or "interesting", so long as it supports THEIR point of view...
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: umbrella39
LOL, the OP's agenda is showing again eh...

Meh, it's just like PJ's posts - news is "exciting" or "interesting", so long as it supports THEIR point of view...

Yeah, who needs medical breakthroughs anyway? Clearly only Republicans with agendas.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: umbrella39
LOL, the OP's agenda is showing again eh...

Meh, it's just like PJ's posts - news is "exciting" or "interesting", so long as it supports THEIR point of view...

Yeah, who needs medical breakthroughs anyway? Clearly only Republicans with agendas.

I'm referring to the OPs (and PJs) use of diction, not medical breakthroughs.

Invest in glasses, or learn to read better.
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,665
0
0
Dec 26 update in original post.

Skin-to-stem cell breakthrough so revolutionary that the father of cloning (Mr. Dolly) is abandoning his embryonic stem cell research in favor of skin-to-stem. And to add insult to injury of the pro-only-embryonic pundits, the skin-to-stem method does not require anti-rejection therapy since it comes from adult cells of the subject.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The sun is shining brightly on morally-sound science. :sun:
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Without the previous work in embryonic research would a skin cell to stem breakthrough be possible?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Dec 26 update in original post.

Skin-to-stem cell breakthrough so revolutionary that the father of cloning (Mr. Dolly) is abandoning his embryonic stem cell research in favor of skin-to-stem. And to add insult to injury of the pro-only-embryonic pundits, the skin-to-stem method does not require anti-rejection therapy since it comes from adult cells of the subject.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The sun is shining brightly on morally-sound science. :sun:

The phrase I bolded describes a group that only exists in your obviously rich fantasy life. There is no one out there rejecting non-embryonic research, the ONLY group trying to restrict medical research based on a set of "morals" even they can't explain is composed of people like you. You don't understand the science, and you sure as heck don't understand the ethics. You're just a confused person trying vainly to flail about for some high ground to stand on to make you feel better about yourself.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Well, we can all be grateful for GOP's leadership on science :D
Seriously, we need bot embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research. Neither is immoral, as if the people who are claiming it is have a leg to stand on when it comes to morals anyways. Using discarded embryos to save lives instead of flushing them down the toilet to become fish food is not immoral. You can argue whether creating embryos for sole purpose of stem cell research is immoral, but there is no valid argument that harvesting embryos that would otherwise be discarded is immoral.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, we can all be grateful for GOP's leadership on science :D
Seriously, we need bot embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research. Neither is immoral, as if the people who are claiming it is have a leg to stand on when it comes to morals anyways. Using discarded embryos to save lives instead of flushing them down the toilet to become fish food is not immoral. You can argue whether creating embryos for sole purpose of stem cell research is immoral, but there is no valid argument that harvesting embryos that would otherwise be discarded is immoral.

While I'm in favor of any and all stem cell research and don't think it's worth getting all uppity over a few nonsentient cells, I'm not sure that there isn't a valid argument to be made in favor of the difference between disposal and experimentation. I mean, how would you feel if instead of burying grandma, scientists used her corpse to study the effects on the human body of a failed parachute opening by throwing her dead body out of a plane at a few thousand altitude? She was going to be cremated or buried anyway, so what difference what we do with the body? But clearly we do care about the method of disposal (and that's on an irrefutably dead person) and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss people who have genuine concerns over what they feel to be a potential human life.

That said, I'm more comfortable messing around with stem-cells than just about any animal experimentation. My morality zone has a lot to do with the ability to perceive suffering/pain, which animals can, regardless of their intelligence.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Dec 26 update in original post.

Skin-to-stem cell breakthrough so revolutionary that the father of cloning (Mr. Dolly) is abandoning his embryonic stem cell research in favor of skin-to-stem. And to add insult to injury of the pro-only-embryonic pundits, the skin-to-stem method does not require anti-rejection therapy since it comes from adult cells of the subject.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The sun is shining brightly on morally-sound science. :sun:

The phrase I bolded describes a group that only exists in your obviously rich fantasy life. There is no one out there rejecting non-embryonic research, the ONLY group trying to restrict medical research based on a set of "morals" even they can't explain is composed of people like you. You don't understand the science, and you sure as heck don't understand the ethics. You're just a confused person trying vainly to flail about for some high ground to stand on to make you feel better about yourself.

Nicely put, but it will be completely glossed over and ignored by this post and runaway robotroll.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Is it hypocritical for a PETA member to receive medical treatment that was tested on an animal?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, we can all be grateful for GOP's leadership on science :D
Seriously, we need bot embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research. Neither is immoral, as if the people who are claiming it is have a leg to stand on when it comes to morals anyways. Using discarded embryos to save lives instead of flushing them down the toilet to become fish food is not immoral. You can argue whether creating embryos for sole purpose of stem cell research is immoral, but there is no valid argument that harvesting embryos that would otherwise be discarded is immoral.

While I'm in favor of any and all stem cell research and don't think it's worth getting all uppity over a few nonsentient cells, I'm not sure that there isn't a valid argument to be made in favor of the difference between disposal and experimentation. I mean, how would you feel if instead of burying grandma, scientists used her corpse to study the effects on the human body of a failed parachute opening by throwing her dead body out of a plane at a few thousand altitude? She was going to be cremated or buried anyway, so what difference what we do with the body? But clearly we do care about the method of disposal (and that's on an irrefutably dead person) and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss people who have genuine concerns over what they feel to be a potential human life.

That said, I'm more comfortable messing around with stem-cells than just about any animal experimentation. My morality zone has a lot to do with the ability to perceive suffering/pain, which animals can, regardless of their intelligence.

That's a stretch.
We use corpses for medical research all the time. We also harvest organs from dead kids with parental consent. So, again, even if you think that clump of cells is a "baby" there is nothing unethical in harvesting its stem cells when it is decided that it will be disposed, and agreed to by the donor.
If the woman from whom the to be discarded embryos were created agrees to them being used for research, it's a non issue.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
embryonic research lead scientists to this new solution. so perhaps its still fruit from a poisonous tree for the religious if they are honest.

it doesn't matter what science comes up with. the original decision for the religious to oppose embryonic research was still unethical and probably held us back. sometimes a kid survives being hung outside a hotel window by michael jackson after all. but that doesn't make it right.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,393
126
It's a great discovery, no doubt, but I'm still greatly distressed that we essentially were stalemated for seven years in essentially barring advanced medical research because of a few extremist clown's so-called religious objections. In those seven years my father died of cancer and I can't help but think he would still be with us if those idiots weren't in power. Along with tens of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of US soldiers, etc.-so many souls sacrificed to satisfy their views.

GWB is already making religious noises still objecting to research in this field even if stem cells aren't used. Any way of shipping those flat earthers back to the middle ages?
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
This is great news, now we can save the unused embryos from being thrown in the trash - yea for Jesus!

\oh, wait - the jesusfreaks don't care about that.... Back in the dumpster, little could-be bobby and mary....
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,665
0
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
This is great news, now we can save the unused embryos from being thrown in the trash - yea for Jesus!

\oh, wait - the jesusfreaks don't care about that.... Back in the dumpster, little could-be bobby and mary....

I would eagerly support federal legislation that mandates strict rules for artificial fertilization.

In the meantime, real "Jesus freaks" (i.e. informed Christians) go to a fertilization clinics which do not artificially fertilize more eggs than will be implanted.

I disposed of your liberal talking point two-fold.. :thumbsup:
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
For those saying that lack of "free" research on embryos hapered research...


The embryonic stem-cell reserch ban only hampered that One line of thinking. As a reswult of the impediment, this new skin cell discovery was researched as an "alternative". It NEVER would have been researched otherwise. Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Of course nobody will know if anything fruitful would come of the embryonic stem-cell research. Political pressure assured that.