Why we need embryonic stem cell research?

[BaliBabyDoc]

Finding a Cellular Neverland: How Stem Cells Stay Childlike (excerpts . . . but it's a short article and worthy of reading yourself)

Despite their celebrated "immortality," the capacity of embryonic stem (ES) cells for endless division has its limits.
---
How some ES cells succeed in recapturing lost cellular innocence and start anew once they begin maturing is described in a forthcoming study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, authored by a team of scientists from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

The significance is that it may be possible to get adult stem cells to do this trick as well. Accordingly, we would have a greatly reduced need for embryonic stem cells.

By extension, if we did not have embryonic stem cell research we may have never discovered Nanog.

"Embryonic stem cells represent enormous hope for treating otherwise incurable diseases," says Belmonte. "But before we can design therapeutic strategies or introduce these cells into patients, we must learn how to differentiate them into specific cell types and how to tame their formidable proliferating ability," he explains.

Or we can invade Iraq . . .

In a study published earlier this year, the same Belmonte and Gage lab team demonstrated that a few ES cells in a culture dish tended to lose stemness and evolve into muscle cell precursors, most likely goaded by a muscle differentiation factor known as BMP. But when those maturing cells were forced to produce Nanog, they reverted to their naïve state and regained pluripotency.

In application, you would take a few of the remaining functional cells in a person with Parkinson or Type I diabetes . . . send them back to a precursor stage . . . allow them to replicate . . . and then differentiate back into dopamine neurons or beta cells.

Identifying the Nanog/Smad1 feedback loop indeed has significant implications for regenerative medicine. Animals like salamanders readily regenerate severed limbs as adults, but mammals cannot. In fact, mammals have a limited repertoire of tissues they can regenerate, and some essential ones, such as nerves and cardiac muscle, are not on that list.

Can you imagine . . . lose a hand; grow a new one . . . early kidney failure; grow a new one!

In the broader context, this is why you fund basic research. It may be decades before an actual therapy evolves from this work but the outcomes will be revolutionary. No drug or biologics company will make that kind of investment in the public good. We used to be able to depend on the government to do it. Unfortunately, they have other priorities these days.

 

[DealMonkey]

It's why I'm glad to see progressive states like California spending $3 Bil over the next decade for broad stem-cell research. Not only does it give the middle finger loud and clear to anti-stem-cell politicians like Bush and most of the GOP, it also flips off religious and social conservatives too blinded by their own religion to allow humanity to benefit from the best available and most advanced medical treatments.

 

[BBond]

But if this did prove to be the "Fountain of Youth" those same anti-stem cell politicians like bush would control it and keep it for themselves. Now ask yourself, would you want to see them and their ilk live forever?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: BBond
But if this did prove to be the "Fountain of Youth" those same anti-stem cell politicians like bush would control it and keep it for themselves. Now ask yourself, would you want to see them and their ilk live forever?

You cannot control science. Bushistas ignored science for the first few years and have tried to 'direct' it since then . . . but the truth always gets out . . . eventually. Broad NIH-based research into stem cells would draw hundreds of academic and nonprofit organizations into the endeavor. The only way to control (and by extension stifle) stem cell research is do what the Bushistas did . . . deny federal funding.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: BBond
But if this did prove to be the "Fountain of Youth" those same anti-stem cell politicians like bush would control it and keep it for themselves. Now ask yourself, would you want to see them and their ilk live forever?

You cannot control science. Bushistas ignored science for the first few years and have tried to 'direct' it since then . . . but the truth always gets out . . . eventually. Broad NIH-based research into stem cells would draw hundreds of academic and nonprofit organizations into the endeavor. The only way to control (and by extension stifle) stem cell research is do what the Bushistas did . . . deny federal funding.

IMO, if they find this is the "Fountain of Youth" they will control it through whatever means necessary. Just imagine our current crop of psychophant rulers controlling life and death, who lives forever and who is just kept around for a lifetime or so while they're "economically feasible". Brave New World. They could puruse their most cherised pasttime, playing god.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: BBond
But if this did prove to be the "Fountain of Youth" those same anti-stem cell politicians like bush would control it and keep it for themselves. Now ask yourself, would you want to see them and their ilk live forever?

You cannot control science. Bushistas ignored science for the first few years and have tried to 'direct' it since then . . . but the truth always gets out . . . eventually. Broad NIH-based research into stem cells would draw hundreds of academic and nonprofit organizations into the endeavor. The only way to control (and by extension stifle) stem cell research is do what the Bushistas did . . . deny federal funding.

IMO, if they find this is the "Fountain of Youth" they will control it through whatever means necessary. Just imagine our current crop of psychophant rulers controlling life and death, who lives forever and who is just kept around for a lifetime or so while they're "economically feasible". Brave New World. They could puruse their most cherised pasttime, playing god.

If they want to play god, I'm happy to step up to play death! And I can guarantee there are many out there who would do the same.

 

[BBond]

The bottom line is, if they have the ability to continue human life indefinitely do you think they're going to bestow immortality on some factory worker or save it for themselves? Just how many people do you think this planet can support?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BBond
Just how many people do you think this planet can support?

I don't believe in the Malthusian principle.

As far as I've heard, if we used the most up-to-date farming methods on every piece of farmland in the world, we could support around 20 billion without increasing arable land at all. In total, it's feasible, even with todays' methods to support upwards of 50 billion people... at least temporarily.

Of course, as it's happened every other time in history, population pressure will cause a break. Either there will be a war that will trim the population, or we will colonize other planets of the solar system, and possibly beyond. Until there is a pressure humanity will simply not dedicate enough resources to such an endeavor, so if anyone wants to see a real spaceship anytime soon, either work on prolonging life, or make some more children.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
In the broader context, this is why you fund basic research. It may be decades before an actual therapy evolves from this work but the outcomes will be revolutionary. No drug or biologics company will make that kind of investment in the public good. We used to be able to depend on the government to do it. Unfortunately, they have other priorities these days.

You've simply dodged the entire reason for this debate (i.e. ethical considerations) in favor of your red herrings (e.g. Or we can invade Iraq . . .). Until you can answer the ethical dilemma posed by the usage of embryonic stem cells, the question of whether the government should fund it for potential merit is intrinsically meaningless.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
In the broader context, this is why you fund basic research. It may be decades before an actual therapy evolves from this work but the outcomes will be revolutionary. No drug or biologics company will make that kind of investment in the public good. We used to be able to depend on the government to do it. Unfortunately, they have other priorities these days.

You've simply dodged the entire reason for this debate (i.e. ethical considerations) in favor of your red herrings (e.g. Or we can invade Iraq . . .). Until you can answer the ethical dilemma posed by the usage of embryonic stem cells, the question of whether the government should fund it for potential merit is intrinsically meaningless.

I have not met a single scientist who thought that using ES cells was a dilemma. When you come up with a legitimate reason as to why I can't do IVF, then scramble the goop for research purposes 10 days later, let me know.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
I have not met a single scientist who thought that using ES cells was a dilemma. When you come up with a legitimate reason as to why I can't do IVF, then scramble the goop for research purposes 10 days later, let me know.

The issue raised by embryonic stem cell research is the exact same issue as must be addressed in abortion debates. I have debated both ad nauseum in abortion threads previously and don't really have time to begin a decent discussion today.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
I have not met a single scientist who thought that using ES cells was a dilemma. When you come up with a legitimate reason as to why I can't do IVF, then scramble the goop for research purposes 10 days later, let me know.

The issue raised by embryonic stem cell research is the exact same issue as must be addressed in abortion debates. I have debated both ad nauseum in abortion threads previously and don't really have time to begin a decent discussion today.

:thumbsup:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
I have not met a single scientist who thought that using ES cells was a dilemma. When you come up with a legitimate reason as to why I can't do IVF, then scramble the goop for research purposes 10 days later, let me know.

The issue raised by embryonic stem cell research is the exact same issue as must be addressed in abortion debates. I have debated both ad nauseum in abortion threads previously and don't really have time to begin a decent discussion today.

:thumbsup:

I asked for a legitimate reason.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Topic Title: Why we need embryonic stem cell research?
Topic Summary: Research indicates embryonic stem cells may hold key to teaching mature cells to be young again

What???

This requires Science and that is not allowed or acknowledged in the U.S. anymore.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's why I'm glad to see progressive states like California spending $3 Bil over the next decade for broad stem-cell research. Not only does it give the middle finger loud and clear to anti-stem-cell politicians like Bush and most of the GOP, it also flips off religious and social conservatives too blinded by their own religion to allow humanity to benefit from the best available and most advanced medical treatments.

I know that the bill passed, but how does it work? Do stem-cell researching companies just get money collected from tax payers?

This is something that I don't really support, it's smells a lot like socialism...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
I have not met a single scientist who thought that using ES cells was a dilemma. When you come up with a legitimate reason as to why I can't do IVF, then scramble the goop for research purposes 10 days later, let me know.

The issue raised by embryonic stem cell research is the exact same issue as must be addressed in abortion debates. I have debated both ad nauseum in abortion threads previously and don't really have time to begin a decent discussion today.

Get lost then. In the abortion debate, its a question of conflict between a woman's right to control her body and the rights some want to grant to the conceptus. The stem cell debate implies a fertilized egg has some intrinsic rights. Curiously, the only place these rights are being applied is in opposition to ES research. In essence, fertilized eggs are legally considered property unless you want to do research on them with federal funds.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's why I'm glad to see progressive states like California spending $3 Bil over the next decade for broad stem-cell research. Not only does it give the middle finger loud and clear to anti-stem-cell politicians like Bush and most of the GOP, it also flips off religious and social conservatives too blinded by their own religion to allow humanity to benefit from the best available and most advanced medical treatments.

I know that the bill passed, but how does it work? Do stem-cell researching companies just get money collected from tax payers?

This is something that I don't really support, it's smells a lot like socialism...

$300 million a year
Proposition 71 authorizes the state (of California) to sell $3 billion in bonds and then dispense nearly $300 million a year for 10 years to researchers for human embryonic stem-cell experiments, including cloning projects intended solely for research purposes. It bans the funding of cloning to create babies.

Linkage

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Get lost then. In the abortion debate, its a question of conflict between a woman's right to control her body and the rights some want to grant to the conceptus. The stem cell debate implies a fertilized egg has some intrinsic rights. Curiously, the only place these rights are being applied is in opposition to ES research. In essence, fertilized eggs are legally considered property unless you want to do research on them with federal funds.

Get lost because I called shens on your red herring?

You would do well to read up on the real issues involved in abortion ethics. Your summary is fundamentally incorrect.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Don't let the door hit you.

This is NOT an abortion thread. It's a science thread. Call it red herring, unicorn, intelligent Bush policy . . . I don't care. It doesn't concern you. If you have nothing substantive to contribute . . . you should move on.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Don't let the door hit you.

This is NOT an abortion thread. It's a science thread. Call it red herring, unicorn, intelligent Bush policy . . . I don't care. It doesn't concern you. If you have nothing substantive to contribute . . . you should move on.

It could have been a science thread. However, with your OP, you dictated that it was a thread about politics, not the science itself. The politics of why this research isn't being funded. You threw out political red herrings to avoid the real reason, which I have since supplied. Thus, you started a thread with nothing substantive to contribute. I suggest you take your own advice.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Finding a Cellular Neverland: How Stem Cells Stay Childlike (excerpts . . . but it's a short article and worthy of reading yourself)

Despite their celebrated "immortality," the capacity of embryonic stem (ES) cells for endless division has its limits.
---
How some ES cells succeed in recapturing lost cellular innocence and start anew once they begin maturing is described in a forthcoming study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, authored by a team of scientists from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

The significance is that it may be possible to get adult stem cells to do this trick as well. Accordingly, we would have a greatly reduced need for embryonic stem cells.

By extension, if we did not have embryonic stem cell research we may have never discovered Nanog.

"Embryonic stem cells represent enormous hope for treating otherwise incurable diseases," says Belmonte. "But before we can design therapeutic strategies or introduce these cells into patients, we must learn how to differentiate them into specific cell types and how to tame their formidable proliferating ability," he explains.

Or we can invade Iraq . . .

In a study published earlier this year, the same Belmonte and Gage lab team demonstrated that a few ES cells in a culture dish tended to lose stemness and evolve into muscle cell precursors, most likely goaded by a muscle differentiation factor known as BMP. But when those maturing cells were forced to produce Nanog, they reverted to their naïve state and regained pluripotency.

In application, you would take a few of the remaining functional cells in a person with Parkinson or Type I diabetes . . . send them back to a precursor stage . . . allow them to replicate . . . and then differentiate back into dopamine neurons or beta cells.

Identifying the Nanog/Smad1 feedback loop indeed has significant implications for regenerative medicine. Animals like salamanders readily regenerate severed limbs as adults, but mammals cannot. In fact, mammals have a limited repertoire of tissues they can regenerate, and some essential ones, such as nerves and cardiac muscle, are not on that list.

Can you imagine . . . lose a hand; grow a new one . . . early kidney failure; grow a new one!

In the broader context, this is why you fund basic research. It may be decades before an actual therapy evolves from this work but the outcomes will be revolutionary. No drug or biologics company will make that kind of investment in the public good. We used to be able to depend on the government to do it. Unfortunately, they have other priorities these days.

Perhaps the Gates/Buffet foundation will be what the gov't and the private sector has failed yet to properly do.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's why I'm glad to see progressive states like California spending $3 Bil over the next decade for broad stem-cell research. Not only does it give the middle finger loud and clear to anti-stem-cell politicians like Bush and most of the GOP, it also flips off religious and social conservatives too blinded by their own religion to allow humanity to benefit from the best available and most advanced medical treatments.

I know that the bill passed, but how does it work? Do stem-cell researching companies just get money collected from tax payers?

This is something that I don't really support, it's smells a lot like socialism...

Yeah because taxpayer money never gets handed out to companies, let alone research universities.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's why I'm glad to see progressive states like California spending $3 Bil over the next decade for broad stem-cell research. Not only does it give the middle finger loud and clear to anti-stem-cell politicians like Bush and most of the GOP, it also flips off religious and social conservatives too blinded by their own religion to allow humanity to benefit from the best available and most advanced medical treatments.

I know that the bill passed, but how does it work? Do stem-cell researching companies just get money collected from tax payers?

This is something that I don't really support, it's smells a lot like socialism...

Yeah because taxpayer money never gets handed out to companies, let alone research universities.

I don't think he's heard of the NIH...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
I have not met a single scientist who thought that using ES cells was a dilemma. When you come up with a legitimate reason as to why I can't do IVF, then scramble the goop for research purposes 10 days later, let me know.

The issue raised by embryonic stem cell research is the exact same issue as must be addressed in abortion debates. I have debated both ad nauseum in abortion threads previously and don't really have time to begin a decent discussion today.

:thumbsup:

I asked for a legitimate reason.

You are absolutely convinced you are right as, it seems to me as is CW. But our society functions in part by consensus as a democracy. How do either of benefit when minds are closed to each other. I see tremendous potential good in stem cell research and a profound respect for life. Who can say whether accommodation can ever be reached but but it certainly never will be if we close our minds to all points of view but our own.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
I have not met a single scientist who thought that using ES cells was a dilemma. When you come up with a legitimate reason as to why I can't do IVF, then scramble the goop for research purposes 10 days later, let me know.

The issue raised by embryonic stem cell research is the exact same issue as must be addressed in abortion debates. I have debated both ad nauseum in abortion threads previously and don't really have time to begin a decent discussion today.

:thumbsup:

I asked for a legitimate reason.

You are absolutely convinced you are right as, it seems to me as is CW. But our society functions in part by consensus as a democracy. How do either of benefit when minds are closed to each other. I see tremendous potential good in stem cell research and a profound respect for life. Who can say whether accommodation can ever be reached but but it certainly never will be if we close our minds to all points of view but our own.

There is no consensus on this issue. If we fall behind in stem cell research, and ten thousand people who could have been saved die before we come to our senses, this blood will be on the hands of people like CW. Because what he's doing is standing over a patient who's dying, and calmly explaining that he can't save them because of his beliefs. That's murder as far as I am concerned.

Now he's going to try to argue that this is the same thing as the abortion debate, but he'd be correct only to the extent of being wrong on both counts. Here's the key difference in both cases, but especially in the case of ES cells:

- His side places morality over the lives of conscious human beings
- My side places the lives of conscious human beings over morality

I wonder whether with that kind of an attitude, he really belongs in medicine. Actually, I already know the answer, but I don't want to turn this thread into a mudslinging competition.

The fact is that life does not begin at fertilization either way... because in a biological sense, both the sperm and the egg are alive long before they merge... and certainly a 'human life' does not begin at conception either, and if he disagrees, he's free to tell us what happened between the time he was a fertilized egg and birth, from the perspective of the fetus, as he remembers it himself.