View Full Version : Stem Cell Research

September 12 2012, 07:57:22 PM
Articles like this one (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19570024) prove to me that stem cell is definitely for the better. I understand the moral objection of how they are harvested is the biggest argument against it, but they have found ethical ways to harvest them and I don'tt see any reason that it shouldn't be supported more.

Dark Flare
September 12 2012, 09:02:30 PM
Absolutely 100% without question should be government funded, and funded well at that. I have no doubt that the future of western medicine lies in stem cell research.

September 13 2012, 02:27:59 AM
It's been a while I've actually seen an article actual note from where the stem cells were derived. Most advances and successes have been from adult stem cells while the embryonics were posing major roadblocks (and causing cancer). I still remember the esophagus that they created from that one guy's bone stem cells.

September 13 2012, 02:33:47 AM
If they found ethical ways to harvest them then I don't see a problem with it. (and even before not really just why someone wouldn't want them used to treat them.)

Diicc Tater
September 13 2012, 09:20:34 AM
Stem cell treatment is a major part of fighting cancer. Harvested from the patient at that.

It's easy to have opinions against it when you are told that you need dead babies to get them....
Embryonic stem cells are harvested from 4-5 day old blastocyst. In total it's something like 100 cells. Not yet a fetus, just early stage embryo.
Probably the best bet at regenerative procedures.

For treating cancer like leukemia you will get the adult stem cells. Bone marrow transplants anyone?
A friend of mine who had non-hodgkins lymfoma had autograft treatment with bone marrow, spinal fluids and blood. Helped him to get another year in remission but it came back.

Fund it in every way.

September 13 2012, 11:14:53 AM
The only bit I'm against is when you split the fetus in half and suck the stem cells out of the spine.

SAI Peregrinus
September 13 2012, 11:59:26 AM
Adult stem cells are the ones we want to use all the time, if possible. The issue with them is that it's harder to make them differentiate into the right sort of tissue, while that's easy with the embryonic cells. Adult stem cells from the person being treated won't have rejection issues (barring autoimune diseases) while embryonic cells will be rejected. However, it's likely easier to do things like make entire organs out of the embryonic cells. Since you'd need antirejection meds anyway for most organ transplants an embryonic cell organ can help, especially given the wait times for many organs. The whole blastocyst can be grown from harvested eggs/sperm, and fertilized in the lab. A significant source of embryonic stem cells are the discarded embryos from in vitro fertilization.

Rudolf Miller
September 13 2012, 12:37:28 PM
The only bit I'm against is when you split the fetus in half and suck the stem cells out of the spine.


September 14 2012, 07:11:59 PM
Edit: actually, nop. Detailed thoughts on the casualness of life and death in modern society is only tangentially related. Doesn't belong here.

I'm for stem cell research, so long as someone who is not an idiot thinks over the whole process. Even perfectly viable children sometimes should not be brought into this world, but that doesn't mean we have to treat them as sacred objects. If we can save someone's life instead, go to it. It's not going to be a person and we need to be ok with that fact.

Rudolf Miller
September 14 2012, 07:16:58 PM
Could you please PM me that argument because I'm interested in reading it?