Stem Cell Research

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is it possible that such a common topic has not yet been debated here?


I don't recall ever comming across any such debate, and my search of the forums wielded no results. Therefore, I assume this is a fresh subject.


Should the government fund stem cell research? Is it ethical to use unborn embryos as a cure for various human diseases?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Scientists devote ample time to discovering the causes of such diseases. But the plain fact of the matter is, many times we lack the knowledge and technology to prevent their occurance. Consequently, we must deal with the symptoms.

If accurately determining the cause was as easy as you seem to imply, stem cell research would cease to be an issue. Personally, I am unwilling to wait for another smallpox miracle when a cure is readily available.

Sorry, but we are looking at the same thing in different ways. You choose the suffering human over the clump of cells, and as I see it, you are blatantly favoring one over the other, the same as the person who blatantly favors the clump of cells.

There is no middle ground. Either you favor the cells, or you favor the human. Subsequently, both you and I could be considered murderers. And personally, if I have to be a murderer, I am going to choose to murder the ignorant embryo mere days away from death, rather than the suffering human with many years ahead of him.

[keltzkroz]

I think you misunderstood what I meant by 'this disease that the world has'. I'm referring to the diseases of society, problems of society as I see them (some of its symptoms I pointed out in my previous posts), not diseases of the body.

[Chimp]

These blastocyst are potential humans. They have human genetics, but even
in the best circumstance, they have a 1 in 5 chance of viability. It is a wasteful
procedure, akin to making a toothpick from a tree.

My thoughts on this are somewhere along the lines of... the procedure worked,
mommy has her bun in the oven; she has created...well... assisted in the
nurturing of life and now the raw materials for that procedure are awaiting
disposal. There is no way she (mommy) could ever use all the harvested
eggs. People who go the invitro route are looking to get their genetics into
their womb...they don't want donated eggs. The eggs left over are like a
3 day old fish casserole. It just sits in the fridge...sure it's okay to eat, but
you always pick something else before the fish...and eventually it goes to
waste.

[Jose]

I think that what is missing from this discussion is some simple immunology. If you try to transplant an organ into me, I am pretty much guaranteed to reject it, unless you fill me up with immune-suppressant drugs. Now, suppressing the immune system has problems. It's not so easy to fight off infections, for example. Or cancer.

Therefore, it makes very little sense to "harvest" embryos for the purpose of growing the stem cells into usable organs. The tissue-rejection problem is too great.

What does make sense, if I have some problem that could be cured by stem cell technology, is to take one of my own cells and reprogram it, so that it turns on the genes of a newly-fertilized egg. It will develop into an embryo of the right age to harvest stem cells, which can then be used for my rescue. These cells, being mine already, are a perfect match, and will not be rejected.

OK...this ball of cells that we have here...it's just a ball of cells. They are my cells. If we reprogram a cell or two of mine, then reprogram its descendet cells again and develop an organ, have we destroyed a potential human being? Or am I already here? Is it unethical to save me using my own cells?

I think this is the real issue. Is this type of technique immoral, or is it a life-saving measure that it would be immoral not to use?

[Chimp]

Is it true that the body rejects undifferentiated cells? I imagine not a lot of
research has gone into this since stem-cell research is in it's infancy as it
were . I see your argument about an entire organ, although, if they're going
to the trouble of growing the organ they probably will address the issue of
rejection at some point. Maybe they will be able to condition the cells to allow
for a smoother transplant.

[Jose]

Is it true that the body rejects undifferentiated cells? I imagine not a lot of research has gone into this since stem-cell research is in it's infancy as it were . I see your argument about an entire organ, although, if they're going to the trouble of growing the organ they probably will address the issue of rejection at some point. Maybe they will be able to condition the cells to allow for a smoother transplant.

There would be no point in injecting undifferentiated cells, since they could differentiate into anything, or they could simply continue to grow--as a teratocarcinoma (stem cell tumor that gives off cells that differentiate into all kinds of random things). Even so, it is the genetically-determined cell-surface proteins that are the critical thing, and they are unique to each individual. (Except, of course, for clones like identical twins or triplets). Therefore, even if undifferentiated cells were injected, they would still have the cell-surface proteins of the donor...which means that the donor should also be the recipient.