which stem cell option would you support?

[achilles12604]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6239871.stm

New Stem cells have been discovered and used. These stem cells have been tested and appear in those tests, to have the same effectiveness at producing vital organs and nerve tissue. Thus these new cells are as usefull as those from embryos.

So my question. Would you support using these new cells in place of the Embryo stem cells? Why?

I (of course) am for using these new cells. Not only because of my own personal moral questions on the matter, but for the simple and practical reason of getting rid of one political, socal and moral "hot button." Those of the population who are "absolutists" in this area could be made happy and without losing any scientific edge. I only see positive outcomes of this new discovery being used in place of the current method.

[Confused]

I am in favor of using any and all types of stem cells. In regards to those mentioned in the article, more study is needed before we can be sure one could actually use them and avoid the host vs donor complication. This is a complication that is 100% avoided in embryonic stem cells prior to 6 wks gestation. However, the issue with obtaining the stem cells from amniotic fluid would be tricky. First, they are small in quantity, and second, obtaining the amnitoic fluid prior to contamination would be needed and seldom possible. Once a woman goes into labor, her amniotic fluid sac breaks, either preceding labor or during labor. If it breaks or leaks, it is no longer sterile. It is contaminated and not an optimal source due to obvious reasons.

I know you are against the embryonic stem cells, and I won't say your argument isn't just, but still, the fact is abortion is legal. Why not use these rich resources for something good. The ends may not justify the means, but the end isn't the cause of the means. The means is happening regardless of the end.

[achilles12604]

I am in favor of using any and all types of stem cells. In regards to those mentioned in the article, more study is needed before we can be sure one could actually use them and avoid the host vs donor complication. This is a complication that is 100% avoided in embryonic stem cells prior to 6 wks gestation. However, the issue with obtaining the stem cells from amniotic fluid would be tricky. First, they are small in quantity, and second, obtaining the amnitoic fluid prior to contamination would be needed and seldom possible. Once a woman goes into labor, her amniotic fluid sac breaks, either preceding labor or during labor. If it breaks or leaks, it is no longer sterile. It is contaminated and not an optimal source due to obvious reasons.

I know you are against the embryonic stem cells, and I won't say your argument isn't just, but still, the fact is abortion is legal. Why not use these rich resources for something good. The ends may not justify the means, but the end isn't the cause of the means. The means is happening regardless of the end.

My knowledge of the actual science is very limited concerning this subject. Wouldn't it be possible to extract the cells any time before the baby was being born, say week 37?

As for your last paragraph, I'm afraid I am at a loss as to what you meant. I take it as "The end good justifies the means" but you specifically said this was not what you were trying to say so I am truely lost. Could you give an example or explain further?

[Goat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6239871.stm

New Stem cells have been discovered and used. These stem cells have been tested and appear in those tests, to have the same effectiveness at producing vital organs and nerve tissue. Thus these new cells are as usefull as those from embryos.

So my question. Would you support using these new cells in place of the Embryo stem cells? Why?

I (of course) am for using these new cells. Not only because of my own personal moral questions on the matter, but for the simple and practical reason of getting rid of one political, socal and moral "hot button." Those of the population who are "absolutists" in this area could be made happy and without losing any scientific edge. I only see positive outcomes of this new discovery being used in place of the current method.

Insufficient information for a meaningful answer. While these new stem cells show promise, it is unknown if they are as versatile as embryonic stem cells. We know the embryonic stem cells are the most versatile.

Depending on how they extract the stem cells, and if, after testing, they show they are as flexible as embryonic stems cells, then yes, by all means, use these stems cells to develop new 'stem cell lines'. I rather suspect they will be found equivalent, depending on the way they extract it. However, until such time as that can be guaranteed, research should still be done until we know for sure.

I see the positive outcomes of this new discovery.. but there are still just too many unknowns. Not all stem cells are created equal. I think this has more
potential that the umbilical cord stem cells, or the adult stem cells
. However, until more information is available and more testing is done, I don't know if it can be a total replacement for embryonic stems cells.

[Confused]

I am in favor of using any and all types of stem cells. In regards to those mentioned in the article, more study is needed before we can be sure one could actually use them and avoid the host vs donor complication. This is a complication that is 100% avoided in embryonic stem cells prior to 6 wks gestation. However, the issue with obtaining the stem cells from amniotic fluid would be tricky. First, they are small in quantity, and second, obtaining the amnitoic fluid prior to contamination would be needed and seldom possible. Once a woman goes into labor, her amniotic fluid sac breaks, either preceding labor or during labor. If it breaks or leaks, it is no longer sterile. It is contaminated and not an optimal source due to obvious reasons.

I know you are against the embryonic stem cells, and I won't say your argument isn't just, but still, the fact is abortion is legal. Why not use these rich resources for something good. The ends may not justify the means, but the end isn't the cause of the means. The means is happening regardless of the end.

My knowledge of the actual science is very limited concerning this subject. Wouldn't it be possible to extract the cells any time before the baby was being born, say week 37?

As for your last paragraph, I'm afraid I am at a loss as to what you meant. I take it as "The end good justifies the means" but you specifically said this was not what you were trying to say so I am truely lost. Could you give an example or explain further?

Since genetics and stem cell research was my passion prior to the ban on embryonic research, I can answer much.

Yes, you could extract the fluid prior to birth, the only problem is that there is a risk that by doing so you could rupture the sac leading to premature birth. Also, the research is still new. It is also my understanding that the amount of stem cells in the amniotic fluid is miniscule compared to embryonic stem cells. That means one would require much fluid to extract enough stem cells to apply to research let alone applications. So, once again, I will say that it is still to early to tell. It is also to early to be certain that these cells would in fact avoid the donor vs host rejection.

When I say the ends may not justify the means but the means is happening regardless I am referring to this: abortions are legal. That is fact. Any research being conducted on embryonic stem cells was obtained from aborted embryos (usually <6 wks gestation) that were donated to science. The persons abortion wasn't paid for, nor was the person compensated in any way for the donation. Much like donating a body to science. So, the fact that abortion is legal means that it will happen regardless of whether or not science uses the stem cells. I may not be able to go through with an abortion but as long as some do, why not make something good come from it. Another example, though I loathe to use it, is Hitlers experiments on the Jews. The means was wrong, but because of it, we learned much of what we know about hypothermia and how to appropriately treat it. That is just one of many things we learned from his demented and morally wrong medical experiments. So, does the end justify the means, no. But the means happened, why not try for a positive end?