Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

stem cell research


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 altair05

altair05

  • Members
  • 110 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:17 PM

Posted 09 September 2010 - 01:26 AM

I was wondering what other thoughts were out there based on the fact that a US District Court ordered a freeze on federal funding for stem cell research. I personally think that stem cell research should be getting more funding then most of the medical funding the US gov't provides due to the fact that these cells have the power of healing many terminal diseases on the rise.

Thoughts anyone.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 troublesh00ter

troublesh00ter

  • Members
  • 561 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deep South
  • Local time:03:17 PM

Posted 10 September 2010 - 09:50 AM

Nothing reproduces tissue like stem cells! I feel that our hindrances in medical science can be breached with further stem cell research. I understand this is very touchy for a lot of people because they feel like lives are taken for this research. However, this research is conducive to saving lives whose fates were once death in certainty.

In my opinion this is an equal exchange... a life for a life. It is harsh but that is a very realistic viewpoint.
for3ver,
goose90proof

#3 Layback Bear

Layback Bear

  • Members
  • 1,880 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Ohio
  • Local time:03:17 PM

Posted 10 September 2010 - 04:18 PM

Kill people to save people well in some cases. Killing the innocent to save people, no way. Folks, people are screaming and hollering when they kill rats to save people. If you get caught kicking a cat or dog and reported to officials you can be fined and or go to jail. Kill a little baby and through it in the garbage is okay. I surly don't understand that kind of thinking.

#4 DSTM

DSTM

    "Bleepin' Aussie Addict"


  • Members
  • 2,649 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SYDNEY-AUSTRALIA
  • Local time:06:17 AM

Posted 11 September 2010 - 12:56 AM

I see nothing wrong with using the Umbilical Cord, for harvesting Stem Cells.  

Stem Cell research must go on,to save so many people's lives.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/127192.php















#5 Layback Bear

Layback Bear

  • Members
  • 1,880 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Ohio
  • Local time:03:17 PM

Posted 12 September 2010 - 08:24 AM

I have no problem with using the Umbilical Cord or anything else that doesn't take human life.

#6 altair05

altair05
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 110 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:17 PM

Posted 13 September 2010 - 06:10 AM

I'm definitely for stem cell research, but anyone out there that begs to differ with us?????

#7 thelittleduck

thelittleduck

  • Members
  • 920 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pond
  • Local time:09:17 PM

Posted 13 September 2010 - 04:27 PM

Quote: I'm definitely for stem cell research, but anyone out there that begs to differ with us?????

There will be, but I am not one of them.

#8 TheEgg

TheEgg

  • Members
  • 136 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:17 PM

Posted 16 September 2010 - 07:13 PM

I just can't wrap my arms around the concept that theres a god out there who would rather have a living thinking person continue to suffer and that a cell incapable of thinking, or feeling pain is just as important as that person.

I'm 100% against abortion, but I believe in doing the right thing. I believe a cell in a laboratory is not nearly important as a dying, paralyzed, suffering relative.

If a laboratory was on fire and some kid was in there, do you save the kid or do you come out with a tray full of stem cells? Imagine if your kid was on his/her deathbed and you could press a button that would spare his/her life in exchange for a stemcell. Would you press that button?

Its much easier to be opposed to stem cell research when you are in good health.

#9 altair05

altair05
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 110 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:17 PM

Posted 16 September 2010 - 10:48 PM

I agree with you The Egg. I'm on different terms with you on the abortion topic. I believe that if abortions are necessary then it's ok to have one. But even if someone wants to have an abortion it is their right to have one, the government shouldn't interfere. Now don't get me wrong, I also believe that we should be doing more to educate the public about safer/better alternatives or even playing it safe to avoid an abortion.

#10 k_woodhouse

k_woodhouse

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greater London, England
  • Local time:08:17 PM

Posted 16 October 2010 - 07:10 AM

I think stem cell research is nothing but a good thing. It can seriously save lives, and pulling the funding isn't going to allow that to happen. TheEgg makes a good point - a living, thinking person is far more valuable than an undeveloped bundle of cells. Stem cell research should definitely get more funding. The stem cells don't have to come from human embryos (they can be harvested from the embryos of mice, umbilical cords, hairs, skin, etc. - all thanks to research in stem cells), and this research could really prove beneficial to medecine. The possible applications of stem cell research are varied (including cancer, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, muscle damage, brain damage, and many others) and are definitely worth investment.

I also have no problem with abortion, although there are always exceptions. If the abortion (or taking stem cells?) is done before any sort of brain develops, is it really taking a life? I would argure it's preventing a life, similar to using contraception in the first place. The later it gets, the more grey the decision becomes. Ultimately, I think it comes down to whether the child could be adequetly supported, and that it should be a decision made by the mother, not the government.

#11 thrillhouse

thrillhouse

  • Members
  • 1,040 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Va
  • Local time:04:17 PM

Posted 20 October 2010 - 05:57 PM

There is a treatment being developed to cure Lou Gehrig's Disease from the stem cells of adult's bone marrow.

#12 crosswind

crosswind

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:17 AM

Posted 23 October 2010 - 02:39 AM

Adult stem cells should definitely be looked into more, if only for the reason that the use of embryonic stem cells to cure the terminally ill brings TWO controversial technologies into play - stem cell harvesting from embryos AND cloning humans.

Stem cells are so valuable to medicine because they can transform into any cell in the body - this gives them enormous potential to, for instance, regenerate parts of damaged organs or cause a patient who is paralysed due to a spinal cord injury to regain some sensation or even movement. However, if you use stem cells from ANY stem cell line, made from ANY embryo (for example, the countless embryos that are left over after IVF and would otherwise die sitting on a lab bench after their freezer time ran out - who can really object to their use saving lives, given that this is their eventual fate?) you face the same problems with tissue rejection as if you transplanted an organ - the patient still needs to take anti-rejection drugs or his/her body will just destroy the stem cells because they are foreign.

So to harness the full potential of stem cells to heal people, they need to be genetically identical to the recipient. This can be done two ways:
1) use the process of nuclear transfer to combine genetic material from the patient with a donor egg cell (ie clone him) and use the resulting embryo (at about the eight cell stage - ie a blob with no nervous system) to create a stem cell line that would be used exclusively for that patient with no threat of tissue rejection.
2) try to harvest adult stem cells from the patient eg from bone marrow.

Cloning of humans is ethically questionable in most ways IMHO - personally I would like to see the current moratorium on human cloning maintained. Once it's legal to clone a human in order to create a therapeutic stem cell line, how long will it be before some sicko takes advantage of a legal loophole to implant a cloned embryo in a woman? What we should learn from Dolly is that things we don't yet fully understand, and are still researching (for example, the effect of telomere degeneration - a normal effect of aging that occurs in all somatic cells, and probably led to Dolly's death from old-age related diseases at only six years of age.) It's also a far more expensive and difficult process with a very high failure rate - so in terms of practical uses, with current technology (ie this decade) we're better off focusing on more effective ways to harvest, prepare and use adult stem cells.

How does everybody else feel about how the argument stacks up re. embryonic/adult stem cells?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users