Stem Cell Research
Pepe_Muffassa
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">The embryonic kind.</div> What do people here in this forum think about embryonic stem cell research?
Is "Bushitler" or "Chimp" standing in the way of progress (and killing people like Christopher Reaves in the process)?
Is our President wisely not using taxpayer money on a moraly difficult are of scientific study that so far has produced few breakthroughs?
Is the media lying to us in how the facts are being portrayed?
Is there a bigger story involving money and abortion rights, or is it purely about the science?
Are there areas of science that ought not be tested on humans because of the moral implications?
Any feedback would be great.
Is "Bushitler" or "Chimp" standing in the way of progress (and killing people like Christopher Reaves in the process)?
Is our President wisely not using taxpayer money on a moraly difficult are of scientific study that so far has produced few breakthroughs?
Is the media lying to us in how the facts are being portrayed?
Is there a bigger story involving money and abortion rights, or is it purely about the science?
Are there areas of science that ought not be tested on humans because of the moral implications?
Any feedback would be great.
Comments
Also note that all forms of Stem Cell research are legal. Bush has passed no prohibitions on them. The only restrictions in place are which types of research get subsidized by federal funding, which seems perfectly reasonable.
<a href='http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4700' target='_blank'>American Thinker article.</a>
Join the chorus: <b>Yay stemcell research!</b>
And now that I've read the article: Most likely, the public will benefit greatly from the advances that stemcell research can yield. Isn't it only fair that the public also pays for it then (i.e. the state spends taxes to fund it)? The alternative is strictly privately funded research. This will however lead to all the results and any treatment derived therefrom being privately owned as well - and that means that they can charge whatever they want. Is that preferrable?
So join the chorus: <b>Yay publically funded stemcell research!</b>
Join the chorus: <b>Yay stemcell research!</b>
And now that I've read the article: Most likely, the public will benefit greatly from the advances that stemcell research can yield. Isn't it only fair that the public also pays for it then (i.e. the state spends taxes to fund it)? The alternative is strictly privately funded research. This will however lead to all the results and any treatment derived therefrom being privately owned as well - and that means that they can charge whatever they want. Is that preferrable?
So join the chorus: <b>Yay publically funded stemcell research!</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
if it is highly promissing - why aren't more private enterprises investing?
P.S. I wonder what will happen to the funding during the next election campaign, when the religious conservatives ask their next republican candidate why their party allows dissections of babies <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Im not opposed to it either... yet I am sceptical about the miracles some scientists promise us.
There isn't much commercial money to be made through basic science research, which is what this would be. Most of what happens in basic science research is funded by the NIH or NSF.
Im not opposed to it either... yet I am sceptical about the miracles some scientists promise us. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We'll never know until we try.
Join the chorus: <b>Yay stemcell research!</b>
And now that I've read the article: <s>Most likely,</s> the public will benefit greatly from the advances that stemcell research can yield. Isn't it only fair that the public also pays for it then (i.e. the state spends taxes to fund it)? The alternative is strictly privately funded research. This will however lead to all the results and any treatment derived therefrom being privately owned as well - and that means that they can charge whatever they want. Is that preferrable?
So join the chorus: <b>Yay publically funded stemcell research!</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed.
/me joins in said chorus
<!--QuoteBegin-Moultano+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Moultano)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+ Aug 4 2005, 10:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Aug 4 2005, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
if it is highly promissing - why aren't more private enterprises investing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There isn't much commercial money to be made through basic science research, which is what this would be. Most of what happens in basic science research is funded by the NIH or NSF. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT!
It's sad how few people understand anything about the realities of modern scientific research and invention.
I'm curious if you are involved in some field of scientific research yourself, know somebody who is personally, or are just very good at educating yourself, Moultano.
It should be noted that the "promises" I find most appealing for stem cell reseach are:<ul><li>a means of building custom replacement tissues and then if needed, assembling the parts into whole organs (like assembling a machine except with biological parts instead of mechnical)</li><li>a means of repairing existing damaged tissues (neurons in particular)</li><li>a means of solving the Red Cross blood supply shortages</li></ul>
...now what a beautiful site that will be <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The current argument is that we don't understand what embryonic stemcells can provide, so therefore we should research it to find out. Afterall, we are only using extra embryo's that normally would only be discarded, right??
Except that, if embryonic stem cells does prove to be a success - then the demand for embryonic stemcells will go up. Before you know it, you have mass produced embryos which are harvested for their stemcells. Fueled by economic potential, we'd live in a world where the aging is kept alive by harvesting the youth.
Not a world I'd be particularly happy to live in.
On the other hand, we still do not understand what adult stem cells can provide for us, and adult stem cells are abundant and found within the patient who has a problem. Therefore, funding should be only on adult stem cell research, as it will not lead to a culture of life that feeds on death.
The current argument is that we don't understand what embryonic stemcells can provide, so therefore we should research it to find out. Afterall, we are only using extra embryo's that normally would only be discarded, right??
Except that, if embryonic stem cells does prove to be a success - then the demand for embryonic stemcells will go up. Before you know it, you have mass produced embryos which are harvested for their stemcells. Fueled by economic potential, we'd live in a world where the aging is kept alive by harvesting the youth.
Not a world I'd be particularly happy to live in.
On the other hand, we still do not understand what adult stem cells can provide for us, and adult stem cells are abundant and found within the patient who has a problem. Therefore, funding should be only on adult stem cell research, as it will not lead to a culture of life that feeds on death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm at a loss for an expression here. There is an expression for this type of argument - the kind that basically boils down to "if A, then B." If you'll allow me the liberty, that is what I can boil your argument down to - if embryonic stemcell research, then baby massacre.
But why? If I'm reading your post right, you're saying "if we research embryonic stemcells, we will end up killing embryos by the truckload." Will we? Why does this seem so certain to you?
Not really, adult stem cells aren't nearly as 'plastic' as embryonic stem cells and what we can do with them is only very limited. Embryonic cells have the potential to turn into virtually anything while all adult stem cells have undergone degrees of differentiation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The current argument is that we don't understand what embryonic stemcells can provide, so therefore we should research it to find out. Afterall, we are only using extra embryo's that normally would only be discarded, right??<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thousands of extra embryos are thrown out and never used for anything, do you oppose in vitro fertilisation clinics by chance? For every 1 success they have there are hundreds of failures. I guess it's time to shut them down I guess.
Secondly, embryonic stem cells can provide us a wealth of knowledge in terms of understanding developmental biology and what may go wrong during development. This leads to new methods or understanding of other diseases and developmental disorders. This is before we start thinking about using them directly as therapeutic agents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Except that, if embryonic stem cells does prove to be a success - then the demand for embryonic stemcells will go up. Before you know it, you have mass produced embryos which are harvested for their stemcells.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, this line of logic is amazingly weak and I already buried this sort of argument in the previous abortion thread (IE: Legalise abortions and abortions increase, which is incorrect as the number of illegal abortions goes down considerably, meaning there isn't a net increase overall). Secondly, we already have thousands of embryos that are thrown away in IVF clinics as mentioned.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fueled by economic potential, we'd live in a world where the aging is kept alive by harvesting the youth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, then again if I wanted to use the same argument to emotion fallacy, I could point out that at least it wouldn't be a world with parkinsons and numerous other genetic diseases.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, we still do not understand what adult stem cells can provide for us, and adult stem cells are abundant and found within the patient who has a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They can do far less, this much has already become apparent already. Of course, this research is being done more and more outside of America, which if it isn't careful is going to start losing its technological edge. Additionally, as I already metioned, adult cells are differentiated, they are not the same and nowhere near as 'plastic'. Anyway even passingly familiar with the scientific literature on this topic knows this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Therefore, funding should be only on adult stem cell research, as it will not lead to a culture of life that feeds on death.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another logical fallacy, but then again without any facts that is all you have.
Funding should be on both, because the basic science has to be done. The anti-science luddites can enjoy their genetic diseases until then, that is until they get them and all of a sudden peoples opinions change on the issue. In a hurry at that now I recall.
Funny how that works.