© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/new-sources-for-stem-cells/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
Stem cell research is one of the most promising areas of current medical research. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) have shown an ability to mature into almost any kind of adult cell, be it neuronal, muscle, cardiac, or anything else required. This unprecedented ability has potential applications in the treatment of myriad diseases and conditions, including some of the most common and devastating: Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Type I diabetes, and spinal cord injuries to name just a few.
The problem with ESCs, though, has always been the “E”— embryonic. The stem cell lines used for research have all come from human embryos left over from fertility treatments. The use of embryos for this purpose has caused a great deal of moral debate, and in reaction to these concerns the US and several other governments have placed some stringent limitations on stem cell research. Additionally, all stem cells used for research in the US are derived from only twenty-two couples who are middle-class, mostly white, and infertile. Research from cells with such limited diversity may not be universally applicable.
The end of these problems may be in sight. Within the last two months, three different sets of researchers have announced new sources of stem cells which may have sufficient properties in common with ESCs to allow for stem cell research to proceed unhindered. Two of the groups have independently come up with the same alternative source for a working stem cell replacement— testicles. The third has come up with something completely different.
In March of 2006, Gerd Hassenfuss and a team of researchers from Georg-Auguste University in Gottingen, Germany published a paper in the journal Nature. In it they detail the development of what they call “multipotent adult germline stem cells” (maGSCs). Working from spermatogonial (sperm-producing) cells obtained from the testicles of adult mice, the German team has successfully produced several lines of cells that mimic the abilities of ESCs. They can survive in culture, and they can be coaxed into becoming virtually any kind of mature tissue, a trait known as pluripotency. Most importantly, since they derive from an adult source, the ethical issues surrounding embryonic cultures become irrelevant.
The German team is already beginning to expand their research to human spermatogonial cells, using volunteers already undergoing testicular biopsies as part of IVF treatment. Given their achievement with the mouse cells, they are confident of their eventual success.
While the German team may have been the first to publish, they may actually be a little late on the research. Some four months earlier, a California company by the name of PrimeGen Biotech LLC announced a proprietary method for deriving what they called PrimeCells from human spermatogonial cells. By their description, PrimeCells are essentially the same as the Germans’ maGSCs. PrimeCells are culturable, and PrimeGen states that they have successfully derived heart, brain, bone, and cartilage from their human-source PrimeCells, placing them at least one large step ahead of the Germans. One important difference— since PrimeGen is a company rather than a university, their proprietary methods are unlikely to be published free for the taking. Until the German team catches up, other researchers will likely have to apply to PrimeGen if they want to do stem cell research using spermatogonially derived cells.
Almost simultaneously with the Nature article came a news release about stem cells from a completely different source. This one promises to be much easier to work with, requiring little more than growth medium, rather than the special treatments of the spermatogonial tissue. Dr. Shunichiro Miyoshi of Keio University announced that he and his colleagues had successfully harvested stem cells from the menstrual blood of six women. The researchers have successfully derived heart cells from the collected stem cells, but their potential for pluripotency has not been assessed. Historically other adult stem cells— such as those derived from bone marrow— have not been pluripotent, so this a distinct concern.
Another difference between the two sources is the probable effects of cellular aging. The stem cells harvested from menstrual tissue are likely affected by normal aging. The researchers warn that harvesting is likely to be more useful in younger women, because as the woman ages her cells do as well. Reproductive cells, or Germ cells, may be exempt from this process— the cellular clock must be reset at some point so that offspring can benefit, but exactly how this works is still unknown. This is the reason PrimeGen lists for researching the harvesting of female germ cells, despite the probable difficulties they will encounter. Theoretically, cells derived from female germ cells should have similar or identical properties to those derived from male spermatogonial cells.
Both of these new sources promise much for the future of stem cell research. If the entire human race suddenly becomes a potential source for cells, then the genetic limitations of the twenty-two US-legal ESC lines is no longer a problem. If non-lethal adult sources for these cells are available, then the ethical issues surrounding cell lines vanish. In short, if PrimeCells and maGSCs prove to be what their creators claim, or if the menstrually collected stem cells prove pluripotent, biology and medicine could be truly revolutionized.
Further reading:
News release on Nature article
PrimeGen News
Menstrual Stem Cells (Registration required)
© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/new-sources-for-stem-cells/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
It’s good to see this research continue without all the moral issues.
My balls just cried a little.
I believe that the potential for stem cell research to “cure” a variety of diseases is severelyl overblown. Despite this, the new sources are welcome and will contribute in important ways to the advance of medicine.
The phrase ‘testicular biopsies’ makes me want to go hide under the bed. And correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t only government funded labs restricted to those 22 lines? I thought private labs still had free reign.
Maybe this will take the heat off basic stemcell research, no matter the source of the material. Once the opposition realizes science has found a back door, maybe the morality police will move on to more important battles to rid the world of freethinkers and liberals.
@Marius: Almost every lab has some source of government funding, usually from the NIH, so it’s impossible to separate unless they reject all sources of federal funding. I don’t know if the comment about private labs is true or not, though.
sierra_club_sux said: “It’s good to see this research continue without all the moral issues.”
I take offense to this, as I am a believer in the sacredness of menstrual blood.
ok, put your hands up if you closed your legs a bit when you read this.
and ” sierra_club_sux said: “It’s good to see this research continue without all the moral issues.”
lahuard says: I take offense to this, as I am a believer in the sacredness of menstrual blood.”
did you perhaps think that others might take offense to you saying that we are wrong to want to advance medical science and [oh dear] actually cure diseases? and as for menstrual blood, hmm..lets weigh this up. let it run down the drain in the shower, or use it to cure another human being, saving their life possibly? that’s like saying you object to blood transfusions.
And so what if you do object to blood transfusions?
I take offense to this, as I am a believer in the sacredness of death.
objecting to blood transfusions is pointless as it is something that is naturally replenished by the giver. and why waste something that saves lives? why give up the opportunity to save lives, when it doesnt diminish, injure or impair the donor?
if you object to “the sacredness of death”, fine, dont have the procedures. but in a society where you have the choice of your own beleifs, your opinions should not hold back millions of people who do want the procedures to save lives.
lahuard said: “I take offense to this, as I am a believer in the sacredness of menstrual blood.”
Come on, kiddies. You can smell the foul stench of sarcasm coming off of this comment. Ease up a bit. Sheesh.
Jehova’s Witnesses actually object to blood transfusions. As part of their faith, they refuse them, as well as any other surgery that requires them to take part of someone else. Guess that includes stem cells too…unless it’s their own.
Raise your hand if you want the by-product of mouse nuts inside you.
Prince said: “Raise your hand if you want the by-product of mouse nuts inside you.”
Dammit! Disney is getting into everything these days!! ;-)
Hayley said: “Jehova’s Witnesses actually object to blood transfusions. As part of their faith, they refuse them, as well as any other surgery that requires them to take part of someone else.”
Good – that means they’ll die out faster. Natural selection strikes again! :-P
(I’m joking, I’m joking…)
Mormons say that anyone who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool. And anyone who takes offense when offense WAS intended … is also a fool.
But I think the “offense” comments were tongue-in-cheek.
Funny how a woman can have a late term abortion but we can’t waste an egg. Sigh….
I had read that the umbilical cord blood and/or the amniotic sack could be used to harvest stem cells, was this not true?
I am interested to hear why it is that people object to research of this nature? I understand that it can be considered a moral issue but I dont really see why…
to-be-betrayed seems to have a problem with humor and sarcasm.
Reilly said: “I am interested to hear why it is that people object to research of this nature? I understand that it can be considered a moral issue but I dont really see why…”
Used to use human fetuses for this research. Someone probably still does. Seems people didnt think much of aborting fetuses for this type of thing.
Hayley said: “Jehova’s Witnesses actually object to blood transfusions. As part of their faith, they refuse them, as well as any other surgery that requires them to take part of someone else.”
Hayley, this is incorrect. I was a JW for 18 years, and heard a number of stories of JWs getting organ transplants. They have absolutely no issue with getting anything else transplanted, but a blood transfusion is the ultimate sacrilege to them. The Bible says that blood is sacred, but not the liver or kidney!
Murderous crackpots.
I think the progress in stem-cell research is a beautiful thing. Even if it isn’t the wonderful cure touted by those doing the research, it will certainly be another part of the jigsaw.
Great article.
The other night on the Daily Show Jon Stewart was interviewing an author who wrote a book about the evils of abortion and stem-cell research, and he asked the author why conservatives are so against ‘killing’ innocent embryos to cure terrible diseases, but they have no problem killing innocent civilians in the Middle East. The ensuing tap dance was quite amusing.
FMZ said: “I was a JW for 18 years, and heard a number of stories of JWs getting organ transplants. They have absolutely no issue with getting anything else transplanted, but a blood transfusion is the ultimate sacrilege to them. The Bible says that blood is sacred, but not the liver or kidney!”
do they really think that their brand new liver isn’t going to have some small portion of the donor’s blood left in it? or is it only wrong when transfused intravenously?
Marius said: “The other night on the Daily Show Jon Stewart was interviewing an author who wrote a book about the evils of abortion and stem-cell research, and he asked the author why conservatives are so against ‘killing’ innocent embryos to cure terrible diseases, but they have no problem killing innocent civilians in the Middle East. The ensuing tap dance was quite amusing.”
Okay, then I want to know if liberals are so opposed to “killing” innocent civilians in the middle east why are they so eager to kill so many innocent baby’s?
I’m arguing the other side here, but the reason people are against embryonic stem cell research is that the embryos are discarded from fertility attempts–they are embryos that never would have been fertilized, and will be discarded. But because some see them as potential people, they feel that using them for scientific research starts us down a slippery slope that ends with, I don’t know, human cloning. Or maybe goat marriage. (No, that’s the gay marriage issue. Sorry.)
I take offence at embryos being fertilized.
the possibilities of stem cell research could be good but i do think a lot of it is over blown to get more funding and to make people feel like there is hope.
joe schmoe said: “Okay, then I want to know if liberals are so opposed to “killing” innocent civilians in the middle east why are they so eager to kill so many innocent baby’s?”
Amen
Basically..
Killing is wrong, and has what is generally concidered to be the greatest amount of wrongness of any action possible, before concidering mitigating factors. These factors are not universally agreed upon, but here are some commons ones:
Intention: Killing is less wrong if done on accident, but more wrong if you spent time thinking about it at planning it out. Killing someone intentionally but in a spur-of-the-moment type way is somewhere in the middle. This idea is incorporated into our legal system, and usually agreed to be a good one. The case of embryo destructive research is clearly in the intentional and planned out category.
Guilt of victim: The wrongness of killing is often concidered to be reduced by certain types of guilt of the person killed. For example, killing someone actively attempting murder at the time pretty much makes it okay (though perhaps still not as okay as merely restraining the would-be killer). Some governments also believe that publicly criticizing the government qualifies as justification. Clearly, there is no guilt of the victim to ameliorate the wrongness of embryo destructive research.
Upcoming death: If a person is doomed to die from a debilitating desease without ever recovering from it, many people concider this a justification to kill them. They have nothing to lose, right? The matter gets fuzzier though if medical attention is available which would save them and allow them to live a normal healthy life. For example, the embryos destroyed for research are ones that could have been implanted in a surrogate mother and grown to be perfectly healthy individuals. As another example, imagine killing someone on the basis that they will die without a pacemaker, and you don’t want to give them one. While this may be more justified than killing someone perfectly healthy who would live just fine if you left them alone, it is not as justified as killing someone in a permanent vegetative state, for example.
Person has not been born: Some people apparantly think this is a legitimate justification for killing someone. For example, the Chinese government thinks forced abortions are A-OK because the child has not been born. In the US, it seems to be more like.. it’s okay to kill people if they haven’t been born and their mother says it’s okay. Clearly, embryo destructive research qualifies here.
It’s for Medical research: For example, see Nazi Germany. Many Jews and others gave their lives (against their will) to help German scientists study the limits of the human body. We know so much more about what it takes to kill people now because of them. Thanks guys! Clearly, embryo destructive research qualifies here.
Consent: If the victim says it’s okay (and maybe even asks for it), it’s okay. Clearly, nobody is asking the embryos.
—–
For the record, I view accidental deaths and consenting deaths to be okay, though accidental deaths should be avoided, and in some cases failure to avoid them by gross negligence can approach the badness of intentional deaths. I find guilt to be a justifier, but only in cases of attempted murder in progress, or successful multiple murders or one particularly cruel murder. The others are reason I note others using as justifying killing, but which I personally disagree with. And this is by no means an exhaustive list.
As to “why conservatives are so against ‘killing’ innocent embryos to cure terrible diseases, but they have no problem killing innocent civilians in the Middle East.”.. most of us conservatives are against killing innocent civilians in the Middle East. It is an unfortunate side effect of killing violent murderers in the Middle East. We concider accidently killing some innocents in the cross fire to be less morally reprehensible than premeditated killing of embryos, though in both cases we support the underlying cause. Hence we are happy that an alternative to the killing of embryos which yields the same benefits has been invented. To date, an alternative method of successfully removing Saddam from power has yet to be suggested. Some people will disagree on that, citing containment (which was working horribly) or perhaps assassination (putting his sons in charge? they were on par with thier old man, though perhaps less clever and thereby less of a threat?) or perhaps even a plan I haven’t heard of… just like no one had heard of making pluripotent stem cells from guys’ balls in 2004. The war was, in my opinion, our best option at the time, and I still believe the outcome to date has been a net positive. Disagree all you want. I would also probably take embryo destructive research that saved millions of people from Alzheimer’s at the cost of thousands of embryos to be a net positive, except that even at the time of the Presidential debates I was more impressed by the successful adult stem cell research to date, and felt killing embryos for further research was unjustified given the costs/benefits.
Killing is wrong,
A lot of people don’t think so, murder is wrong but killing is not. You can only murder a human being. What is a human being, where is the point at which a fetus becomes one?
Uh…am I the only person on this planet that has ever considered the fact that developing fetuses behave alot like a parasite?
No you are not alone in that, however an embryo in cyro tank is probably not a parasite on it’s mother. It is significant that Istaran barely touches abortion, for mother and embryo may have competing interests.
I wonder if they run Linux on an AMD based DELL?
time will tell.
~chewy
orc_jr said: “do they really think that their brand new liver isn’t going to have some small portion of the donor’s blood left in it? or is it only wrong when transfused intravenously?”
Everyone here who is a regular knows I am a JW. My friends son had to have a liver transplant, the surgery was done without blood transfusions. No, blood CANNOT be completely drained from the liver. Without going into a complete explanation I will try to give you a summary.
Yes, the Bible states blood is sacred. Starting with Noah, after the Flood God gave them animals to eat; but not the blood. (Prior to the Flood, animals were NOT eaten.) This command was propounded to the Nation of Israel. They could not eat animals strangled as the blood cannot be drained properly; the blood had to be drained and left on the ground. (Blood was a part of animal sacrafices, but that is a whole other branch of the blood issue; but it was used properly and in a sacred way.)
In the newly formed Christian Congregation, there was turmoil between the HEBREW Christians and Christians of other nations. The decision made by the Apostles/Older Ones/Elders was too keep abstaining from blood, from things strangled. Other things like dietary restrictions or having to be circumcised was not necessary.
Down to our day, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse Blood Transfusions and Plasma. They do not eat food with blood in it. (Blood Pudding, Blood Sausage, etc.) Even when an animal is bled properly, you can never truly rid the animal of all blood. However, the main thrust of the command was “The misuse of blood.” There are areas where JW’s exercise their conscience. Blood Fractions, unbroken circuit of ones own blood during surgery, and others. The best way, if you wish, is to go to http://www.watchtower.org to look up information on Blood. You can also request free of charge brochures and videos on this topic; no obligation.
I also have a Journal on NAVS – (National Anti-Vivesection Society) and Stem Cells. http://journals.aol.com/chatcruzin82361/ Click on “My Journals” and then look to the right to select the journal NAVS and Stem Cell Research.
I am sure that the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses will print material as necessary for any new proceedures JW’s have questions on. There are hospitals that are forging ahead on Bloodless Medicine and Surgery. http://www.graduatehospital.com
The above journals will come up, but not as I say they will and how you should look for them. My error. If you go to http://hometown.aol.com/chatcruzin82361/ and THEN click on “My Journals”, look to the right and select NAVS and Stem Cell Research.
Has anyone else thought about the fact that without scientific intervention the embryos would never have existed. I find it perplexing to think about the cycle. Science is allowed to help create an embryo that otherwise for some reason cannot be created through nature. “Scientific intervention is good” Of course due to the financial cost and the hormones given, more embryos are created than needed. There is no one to care for these embryos if science (science because there is no mother to harvest the embryo) takes a step further and develops them into an infant. Now we come to a cross road. If science develops the embryo into a fetus and into an infant – there will be debate because science has taken the role of a mother completely and it will be immoral. ” Scientific intervention is bad” If science disposes of the embryos – there is debate of wasted life. “Scientific intervention is bad” If science uses the embryos for research to potentially help save other lives – there is debate of murdering potential life. I’m just wondering if anyone else recognizes the perplexities of this cycle? “Scientific intervention is bad” In order to end it, we would have to end the allowance of fertility treatments altogether which would end the creation of “extra” embryos that would not otherwise be created?? I’m personally for stem cell research as well as fertility treatments, it’s just the neverending cycle of debates and hypocracy that I find perplexing, and I was wondering if anyone else felt the same.
I consider life sacred, but I’m also pragmatic: the lowest abortion rates in the world are in places, where it is allowed and people have plenty of access to information about contraception and access to the contraceptives. The same people in the U.S. who are against abortion are generally against allowing access to contraceptives and information about them. These same people then look down on women who get pregant out of wedlock. It seems to me, that most of those who are against abortion are actually increasing the number of abortions by their actions. If you are against abortion, please think about that.
If the embryos are going to be discarded anyhow, why not make some usefulness from them?
And even if they are taken half grown fetuses from an abortion clinic, I would much rather see those fetuses go to some goal orientated purpose than to get incinerated at the end of the day. Maybe their mother didn’t want them, but maybe the end of their short short lives could lead to the abolishment of certain terminal diseases and prove more useful than a careless, poor mother having another mouth to feed while one more child goes unloved in the world.
The argument shouldn’t be about the fact that your using something (the embryo) that “could” become human life. It can’t become human life, it’s been/being discarded. That point should be moot. More or less, does the benfit outweigh the potential harm? I would certainly say so.
I am sure that the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses will print material as necessary for any new procedures JW’s have questions on. There are hospitals that are forging ahead on Bloodless Medicine and Surgery.
As they always do. New information comes in, and the JW’s suddenly have “new word” from God. Books are changed, bound yearly volumes of magazines are changed, and suddenly their new history emerges. I for one am tired of your proselytizingon this site sir or ma’am. I come here to expand my mind and knowledge of the world, not to be misled by the JW organization as I have in the past. This is a religion of specific psychiatric tastes. It requires a peculiar sort of neurotic scheme in the personality of those who will become a part of it and a defender of its insanity in the face of constant reproofs of its genuine claims to supernatural authenticity. http://freeminds.org/
Keep your religion to yourself.
I am really surprised that anybody would even hint that a women aborts her baby to forward the stem cell cause. The only part of the aborted fetus that has stem cells is the umbilical cord. I’m not going to be suckered into an abortion debate because this was not even part of the article at hand. Stem cell research is something that Christopher Reeves was pushing and rightfully so. Unfortunately it didn’t happen in his life time and with idiots like Bush calling the shots it never will.
Please stop calling foetus’ babies, its ridiculous to think of something that is a collection of cells as human just because they look similar. As for the comment that foetus are parasites, there is truth to this. I read that this is why a foetus’ and mother’s circulatory systems are seperate, the nutrients and oxygen needed by the developing foetus are transferred through the fallopian tube from the mother’s blood to the foetus’, but the two blood streams are not connected. If they were connected the mother’s white blood cells would kill the foetus believing it to be a parasite. This is how many miscarriages happen, by the blood mixing.
every sperm is sacred
every sperm is great
if a sperm gets wasted
god gets quite irrate.
Stuart said: “Please stop calling foetus’ babies…”
Please learn to spell “fetus”. Do not presume to tell me what I can and can not call that “collection of cells”. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. I don’t cram my language rules down your throat to conform to my views. Please refrain from doing so yourself.
Carcer said: “Please learn to spell “fetus”. Do not presume to tell me what I can and can not call that “collection of cells”. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. I don’t cram my language rules down your throat to conform to my views. Please refrain from doing so yourself.”
*sigh*
From Wikipedia: The word fetus originates from the Latin fetus meaning “offspring,” “act of bearing young,” or “is or was filled with young”. Foetus is an English variation on this rather than a Latin or Greek word, but has been in use since at least 1594 according to the Oxford English Dictionary”
FMZ said: “*sigh*
From Wikipedia: The word fetus originates from the Latin fetus meaning “offspring,” “act of bearing young,” or “is or was filled with young”. Foetus is an English variation on this rather than a Latin or Greek word, but has been in use since at least 1594 according to the Oxford English Dictionary””
Fair enough, however that was obviously not the focus of my post. Good to know though. I am newly educated in the matter.
Carcer you did cram your language rules down my throat and they weren’t entirely accurate where they?
I was wondering when someone else would pick up on the irony.
More like I fouled your language fastball off into the 3rd base bleachers. I admit, I had never seen that spelling before and retracted the first statement. It doesn’t mean that the entire comment is without merit. We can agree to disagree. That’s fine. However, I will continue to call feotuses (feoti?) human beings, and you can continue not to.
I’m a collection of cells that looks similar to a human. Markedly so. When do I get to call myself human?
I ate a baby.
Get in my … parkinsins disease!
Has anyone seen that episode of South Park where Cartman uses “ETC’s” (wow, it’s been acronymisized) to fix a Starbucks and then clone one? I’m pretty sure that’s how they work. They are injected into the site of the disease where they will illegedly fill in gaps and regenerate functional human tissue with all desired structures. Yea, that will work…
“The foolish man built his house upon the sand”
Stem cells are not root cells. Personally, I think that until the specific causes of many of the diseases for which there is talk of utilizing stem cells, the cause of the disease should be better understood. Heck, the function of healthy tissue should be better understood. This is not science. This is premature ejaculation; at least we can harvest some stem cells from it though.
Marius said: “The other night on the Daily Show Jon Stewart was interviewing an author who wrote a book about the evils of abortion and stem-cell research, and he asked the author why conservatives are so against ‘killing’ innocent embryos to cure terrible diseases, but they have no problem killing innocent civilians in the Middle East. The ensuing tap dance was quite amusing.”
Oh I wish I had seen that episode! The RTLers, are not truly anti-abortion,you see,they just want you to wait till the 140TH trimester. :+)
Istaran Says: “To date, an alternative method of successfully removing Saddam from power has yet to be suggested.”
An abortion would have stopped him from being in the first place. :)
One thing missing from these comments (maturity was not completely missing but close) was the inconvenient fact that, so far, nothing of the potential attributed to ESC has come to fruition. They always, and I mean always, seem to end up producing teratomas (huge tumors) and/or becoming malignant.
For what it’s worth, and please check on this, President Bush is the only President, so far, to have released any money to investigate ESC. There were restrictions, like just the 22 lines already in existence; but no one before him allowed any Federal money for research on them at all, under any circumstances.
As to the moral issues, well some people have them and some don’t. Some people get all squeamish about putting babies in a blender, some don’t. Hell, why stop there, it’s just a matter of morals anyway, right? How about orphans? Nobody wants them else they wouldn’t be in an orphanage; just allow labs to adopt them and use them for scientific experiments. Somebody might get some benefit out of it and once you remove the moral issue, that’s what it’s all about, right?
How is it that some people are so sensitive toward people with some horrid disease but have no compassion toward people who have morals? I always wondered why people with morals are treated as though they have a disease; oh, wait, if they had a disease, they would be treated with compassion. Morals can’t even be seen as a mental disorder because people with mental disorders would be worthy of compassion; people with morals just need to be eliminated! Let’s use them for medical experiments! Damn, all they have are adult stem cells; and we already know that they work, so what’s the point?
Oh well, it’s all Bush’s fault anyway; if it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t even have Parkinson’s, or spinal cord injuries, or mortality. It’s Bush’s fault we aren’t immortal, yeah, that’s the ticket, we’re all going to die because of Bush! Let’s get his stem cells!
[At least this makes more sense than 93% of the other comments.]
Back to the point, though, OK? It isn’t just a matter of using ESC for research… What happens if they can find away around the huge, ugly tumors and cancers and really find something worthwhile by using ESC? Where will they get production quantities? We’re not just talking about a few embryos left over at fertility clinics then, we’re going to need ESC by the pound! I don’t think that aborted fetuses would do, either – they’re too old already (especially the partial-birth-ones, with their brains sucked out). Where will they get the hundreds of thousands of zygotes needed to procure all those pounds of ESC?
You think there are moral issues now? The ACLU will have to work overtime to rid the country of all morality and bring us to the heights that Germany reached in the 1940’s! This is just the beginning.
Maybe it isn’t just morality… Maybe some people have reasoned a little further into the future, like where we’ll need to go for manufacturing quantities, not just for R&D. This may be a matter of, not morals, but intelligence; but the same thing applies: some people have it and some don’t…
http://n2.cdn.spikedhumor.com/1/652000/159871_bicycle_feet_1_vw.jpg
Aimew, I think I might indeed lack the intelligence to tell when you are being sarcastic or not. I also think that killing a bunch of embryonic cells is about as morally wrong as squatting a fly. Does that mean that I lack the Divine Morality and, when left to my own devices, will undoubtedly raise my children to be baby-blending nazi’s?