Stem Cell Research and medicine vs belief in God

[_Fortigurn]

I suggest you would have to ask the individuals concerned.

I'm also asking those who do not belive in God or who come to a differing conclusion to express their thoughts on human life, tradeoffs on living with people who think differently, and the importance they place on stem-cell research.

What are your thoughts?

I believe in God, and I believe stem cell research is valid. But I also believe modern technology frequently causes more ethical problems and results in greater opportunity for exploitation and abuse than it solves problems.

[_Jersey Girl]

I suggest you would have to ask the individuals concerned.

I'm also asking those who do not belive in God or who come to a differing conclusion to express their thoughts on human life, tradeoffs on living with people who think differently, and the importance they place on stem-cell research.

What are your thoughts?

I believe in God, and I believe stem cell research is valid. But I also believe modern technology frequently causes more ethical problems and results in greater opportunity for exploitation and abuse than it solves problems.

Fort,

If the type of stem cell procedure that I mentioned previously (growing stem cells from a person's own blood supply) is possible, that could eliminate the ethical issues. Do you happen to know anything about this proceess and why it isn't being explored in the U. S. ?

Jersey Girl

[_asbestosman]

I think Jersey Girl has a good question, but I have no idea about it.

It reminds me of another question I also asked at MA&D. What are the limitations of researching other animal embrionic stem cells instead of human ones? Could we not you those to learn what we could and couldn't discover from human embrionic stem cells?

I wish there were some compromise that could avoid what to many are muddy ethical waters while yet also allowing us to continue making good progress in treating human diseases.

[_Fortigurn]

Fort,

If the type of stem cell procedure that I mentioned previously (growing stem cells from a person's own blood supply) is possible, that could eliminate the ethical issues. Do you happen to know anything about this proceess and why it isn't being explored in the U. S. ?

I am afraid that I don't know anything about this process, or why it isn't being explored in the US.

I wish there were some compromise that could avoid what to many are muddy ethical waters while yet also allowing us to continue making good progress in treating human diseases.

I'm going to be an iconoclast and suggest we learn to get along with suffering, dying, and death, like every other biological organism on this planet has to.

[_Mephitus]

This hasent come up, but i think it might be very usefull for some people to know, there are more than one methods for gathering stem cells. The one method already mentioned is a new one. The classic one that many people have issues with is stem cells gathered from an aborted fetus. The other method is that from umbelical cord blood.

The embryonic stem cells are the most controversal and this is understandable. But with the new advances, this is no longer the only way. Yet many people want you to think that it is. In fact, there are scientists working on a new theory of making stem cells in animals for human use which has shown promise over the last year. The ethical implications of this are now extremely minor with technology advances. The main issue is that of information. Most people just don't have it. Or they just follow what their leaders tell them.

Stem cell research has quite a bit of potential. I have diabetes in my family history and at personal risk for contracting it. If stem cell research can find a cure for this, it would dirrectly aid and help 4 people just in my close family. Let alone the potential organ regeneration, brain disorders, heart, etc that all show potential benefit from this line of research.

On a side note, it might be interesting to make a thread on the ethical implications of complete human cloning. I mean it occurs naturaly through identical twins, why not explore it further?

[_The Dude]

This hasent come up, but I think it might be very usefull for some people to know, there are more than one methods for gathering stem cells. The one method already mentioned is a new one. The classic one that many people have issues with is stem cells gathered from an aborted fetus. The other method is that from umbelical cord blood.

The embryonic stem cells are the most controversal and this is understandable.

Sorry I don't have time to comment more on this thread right now. I have guests at my house this weekend.

But just to comment on the bolded part: a classical strawman. The stem cells that people have issues with are not taken from aborted fetuses. Ever. I don't think Sono Hito meant to present such a distorted falsehood, but the fact that it appeared so casually just drives home the point that our discourse on this issue is contaminated by a contrived link between abortion and stem cell research. It's an invention of abortion-baiters and merely serves a political end.

It's great that adult stem cells are turning up new possibilities, some of which are being realized, but the full potential of adult stem cells and many other areas of medicine will not be realized without loosening restrictions on ES cells. The arguments against stem cell research are basically bad arguments, based on false assumptions and inconsistent standards of morality. in my opinion, the only people who are consistent are those who are willing to say that a clump of cells artificially created in a dish have the same moral value as a fully grown human being. Very few people* are willing to say that.

[_The Dude]

*From above, when I said "Very few people are willing to say this." I meant few critcs of stem cell research are consistent enough to equate "a clump of cells artificially created in a dish" and "a fully grown human being" regarding which is more important to save from destruction -- or in the case of real people, to save from, pain, suffering, and death/desctruction. (Obviously unimplanted embryos do not feel pain and suffering and do not, in fact, have an identity as human (except in the DNA sense)).

[_The Dude]

I have to ask a question here. Has anyone here heard of the process of growing stem cells from one's own blood supply?

I've heard of this in the news but I haven't read the primary research. What I understand is this: people who were in the early stages of type 1 Diabetes, and had not yet lost most/all of their insulin-producing cells, were treated with their own blood stem cells and showed great improvement.

Type 1 Diabetes is caused when a person's immune system attacks his own pancreas, destroying the ability to make insulin. The reason blood stem cells could heal this was function of the specific disease: white blood cells were the problem, and these cells could be wiped out and replaced by the patient's own healthy stem cells. However, it seems to me that the disease will likely recur since the person's own cells caused the immune reaction in the first place. Maybe this is just buying time or returning the patient to a state where a lifetime of immune-suppressing drugs can fend off the diabetes. Also, this worked for these patients because the disease was in an early stage. Advanced type 1 diabetes, and other more common types of diabetes, could not be helped with blood stem cells because the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas would have to be replaced. I know of researchers in the US who would like to use embryonic stem cells to try and replace the function of a damaged pancreas. But they can't do this until the laws are changed.

It reminds me of another question I also asked at MA&D. What are the limitations of researching other animal embrionic stem cells instead of human ones? Could we not use those to learn what we could and couldn't discover from human embrionic stem cells?

We have already seen some proof-of-principle studies in mice -- the most genetically manipulatable mammals. The limitation is that humans are different. We can't even clone human cells yet (and turn them into ES cells) -- this breakthrough is necessary to resolve the mysteries of several complex human diseases whether or not the ES cells are ultimately used in therapy. Once we have the answers, it will be easier to treat some diseases with adult stem cells or new drugs.

You might want to download this essay by Dr. Kevin Eggan, who performed some of the proof-of-principle studies as a graduate student and is now trying to clone human ES cells with private money since the US government won't give him funds. The final section (Hope For The Future) is about using cloning technology to make ES cells for research instead of therapy.

Finally, it think it is of limited usefulness to explore this issue in terms of God vs. science because so many religious people -- especially Mormons -- do not believe that ES cell research is incompatible with a pro-life stance on abortion.

[_Mary]

in my opinion, the only people who are consistent are those who are willing to say that a clump of cells artificially created in a dish have the same moral value as a fully grown human being. Very few people* are willing to say that.

If you are referring to embryos created in a dish, then I am willing to say (as someone who has been through 3 lots of IVF) that they are ABSOLUTLEY NOT just a bunch of cells. They hold the potential to be viable human beings. Your attitude makes me angry Dude on this, I appreciate your knowledge, attitude and wit on a host of other things, but not this. I think you forget that those 'embryos' have parents, and that those 'parents' might just have a strong emotional connection with the sacredness of the lives of those 'bunches of cells' created in a dish.

Mary

[_Fortigurn]

in my opinion, the only people who are consistent are those who are willing to say that a clump of cells artificially created in a dish have the same moral value as a fully grown human being. Very few people* are willing to say that.

If you are referring to embryos created in a dish, then I am willing to say (as someone who has been through 3 lots of IVF) that they are ABSOLUTLEY NOT just a bunch of cells. They hold the potential to be viable human beings. Your attitude makes me angry Dude on this, I appreciate your knowledge, attitude and wit on a host of other things, but not this. I think you forget that those 'embryos' have parents, and that those 'parents' might just have a strong emotional connection with the sacredness of the lives of those 'bunches of cells' created in a dish.

You make a good point here TK. The embryos created 'in a dish' at the wish of an IVF couple are certainly sacred to the couple, who undoubtedly have a strong emotional connection with them.

I wonder however if The Dude had in mind not IVF embryos, but embryos created in a dish by a group of medical researchers in a clinic specifically for experimentation. In this case the creators of the embryos have absolutely zero emotional connection with them at all, and most likely view them as having no moral value whatever.