Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

[Lord Rahl]

I seem to be on a roll lately so I'm making another thread. Fun, fun, fun!

Now, one of our prominent political arguments we have these days concerns that of embryonic stem-cell research.

Those who support it say that it is a necessary science to fund, more specifically government funding since it, in theory, can help treat a wider range of diseases. Those who support it claim that it is not funded, by both the private and federal sector, because people think it is unethical.

Those who are against it make the claim that it is an unproven science and that funding from the federal government would be folly since not even the private sector wishes to fund it "enough". Some of those who protest the science also say that it is unethical because human embryos are destroyed in the process. Now, I wish to stray from that area of the argument to help this discussion stay factual.

My opinion is that government funding of embryonic stem-cell research especially is a dumb idea, at least at this stage of the science. The private sector can do whatever the hell it wants to. You know why? Because the private sector is smart. The private sector does fund embryonic stem-cell research. In fact, there are billions of dollars committed to the science. The private sector funds adult stem-cell research much more. You know why? Because that science has been proven. Embryonic stem-cell research isn't a proven science. From The Heritage Foundation,

In real life, money follows results. When an inventor creates a useful product, investors find him, market the product and sell it. There’s no need for the federal government to get involved. ...
So there are two major research alternatives. The first is stem cells from umbilical cord blood, which are available every time a woman gives birth. The second is adult stem cells, which are typically drawn from the bone marrow of patients. The National Institutes of Health notes on its Web site: “Adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs) are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases.” They’ve been used for decades to treat patients with leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders.

Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, have yet to be successfully used to treat anything, which is why supporters want federal funding for their research effort.

If we look at what science (Adult stem-cell or embryonic stem-cell research) has been proven and actually treats diseases we can look here. Now, that is 72 diseases which adult stem-cell research treats. Embryonic stem-cell research treats a gargantuan goose egg.

Still, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to force taxpayers to pour money into a project that private investors have largely avoided, especially when that project isn’t generating any results. It would make more sense to concentrate on stem-cell work that has proven productive and holds real promise for treating and curing disease.

From here,

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Has Failed to Produce Any Cures or Treatments

Ethical Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cells Exist

Stem Cells from Ethical Sources Are Now Treating Over 70 Diseases and Afflictions

Ethical Alternatives Should Be Pursued Rather Than Seeking to Save Life By Destroying Life

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Diverts Funding Away From More Promising Research

Embryonic Stem Cells Have Dangerous Side Effects That May Require Other Unethical Practices to Remedy

Adult Stem Cells Have Consistently Outperformed Embryonic Stem Cells for Therapeutic Purposes

Very Few “Surplus” Embryos Are Available for Research

Patients Need Cures Not False Hopes

It is true that embryonic stem-cells, even though the science is "promising" because the younger cells can "differentiate into almost all types of bodily tissue", often mutate and cause tumors, rather than treatments. So one of the more demanding questions to answer is, should the federal government fund embryonic stem-cell research? I think not. It is not the government's job to do such a thing. If the science held some convincing credibility then maybe so but that really is beside the point since, if the science was reasonably credible in the first place the private sector would fund the research enough anyway. The government is having a hard enough time as it is. If, in the future, embryonic stem-cell research is a more successful endeavor to pursue, and I am sure it will be, then perhaps those for funding the research federally would have a better argument but until then I really see no use. I'd rather have my hard earned money go to something worthy.

[Gaidin]

Amusingly, the funky catch phrase 'unproven science' provides the biggest, and most legitimate motivation for actually funding it. So, you know, we can learn about it.

[Flavius_Julius]

Hmm, there's a lot of validity to your argument. Almost makes me believe that there aren't any hard facts that pro-stem cell people can throw out there to support their side :hmmm:

Guess I'll throw out my opinion, though it's mostly based on personal experience or belief. Tax money tends to go to a whole bunch of places that have "no real use." One place is institutions to assist people with neurological disorders. My sister has autism, so my family experiences first-hand where some of every tax payer's money goes. But honestly, she makes little to no progress, and any progress she makes is sometimes reverted within days.

For a while, I thought that... well, since this isn't working and it hasn't been proven that state support is beneficial for people like my sister, why would I want my money to go to stuff like this?

I figured after a while that, even though people like my sister may not make any progress, the tax money can certainly help promote understanding of the world around us. In this case, it's not so much the physical world around us, but another person's developmental challenges and behaviors. In the case of stem cells, even though the money might not be going to a proven use, surely the better understanding of stem cells that tax money provides us will be beneficial in some manner? :hmmm:

It is true that embryonic stem-cells, even though the science is "promising" because the younger cells can "differentiate into almost all types of bodily tissue", often mutate and cause tumors, rather than treatments.

I don't know much about stem cells, but to me this seems to imply (just by basic logic) that it might be possible for scientists and biomedical engineers to figure out a way to eliminate the negative while maintaining the positive. While we don't know this for sure, it definitely sounds like it's a possibility. Being a little bit more riskier than most, I don't mind my tax money going to a study like this.

But if the private sector truly funds the stem cell research field more than the government ever could, then I don't see why it's such a huge issue to try to get federal funding? Why protest and waste time on that if the government wouldn't even impact the speed of research by much?

I don't know, again, it's not really my field of expertise. But given my personal experiences with seeing where the tax money goes, and just my risky personality... I'm for paying taxes for it.

[ErikinWest]

This is such a silly argument to begin with. Why should government be involved in science research? It tends to mess it up and slow it down. Let the private research facilities do the tests.

Erik

[Ummon]

Because science research needs funds, and has strategic relevance?

[sdjenkyn]

The government need not pay for the funding. I completely agree it should be privately funded. BUT the government should not interfere in the science on moral grounds which is basically why they dont want to fund it now.

[Ummon]

Stem cell research is divided in two different fields:

Embryonic Stem Cell research: they are right not to fund it on moral bases, because regardless from the religious or non-religious outlook of the people or governement, it is a way to turn human beings into materials.

Adult Stem Cell research: well underway and needs funds.

[Sosobra]

Stem cell research is divided in two different fields:

Embryonic Stem Cell research: they are right not to fund it on moral bases, because regardless from the religious or non-religious outlook of the people or governement, it is a way to turn human beings into materials..

Kinda like organ donors. By your logic the government should not fund any research that deals in body parts or replacing said body parts because they become materials sounds, silly to me.

Embryonic stem cells should be researched, the embryos are there. We should use them instead of discarding them because of some ridiculous and paper thin ethical arguments.

As to the original post the government should fund them so we can learn more thats the point of research to prove a sciences utility.

[Ummon]

Kinda like organ donors. By your logic the government should not fund any research that deals in body parts or replacing said body parts because they become materials sounds, silly to me.

Embryonic stem cells should be researched, the embryos are there. We should use them instead of discarding them because of some ridiculous and paper thin ethical arguments.

As to the original post the government should fund them so we can learn more thats the point of research to prove a sciences utility.

This is the kind of (un-)reasoning we hear so frequently today. Organ donors can willingly accept to donate. They can also be explanted when they die for natural or unnatural causes independent from the will to explant.

To use embryonic stem cells requires that the embryo is destroyed (assertions of the contrary are scientifically wrong and false). Besides, even if we learn to save the embryo, to implant all of them (millions) will be impossible, so they will be destroyed nonetheless. This means creating a human embryo for the purpose of using it as material. It is beyond the line of ethics, and no M.D. should ever do this, based on the Hyppocratic Oath alone.

Matters of sentience, life, soul are irrelevant: that (the embryo) is something which is continuous and homogeneous with a human being. This means it is not to be touched.

Of course you will find more flexible people, but this doesn't make it right. Moral flexibility in the name of (perceived) superior good is what caused Auschwitz, and we haven't learned from the lesson apparently. Most of all because the only difference between embryonic and adult stem cells is the relative difficulty by which the latter can be obtained. A difficulty which can now be easily resolved.

[Sosobra]

T


Matters of sentience, life, soul are irrelevant: that (the embryo) is something which is continuous and homogeneous with a human being. This means it is not to be touched.

Of course you will find more flexible people, but this doesn't make it right. Moral flexibility in the name of superior good is what caused Auschwitz, and we haven't learned from the lesson apparently

Says who you what evidence do you have to backup your claim that it is not to be touched.

Your Auschwitz example is a red herring and irrelevant because the circumstance which lea
d to Auschwitz are much more complex than moral flexibility.

Finally your claim that adult stems cells can do similar things to embryonic is false. There still much debate about the topic and the current view is that Adult Stem cells are not as flexible as embryonic and may only take on the form from which they came.

[Ummon]

Says who you what evidence do you have to backup your claim that it is not to be touched.

Your Auschwitz example is a red herring and irrelevant because the circumstance which lead to Auschwitz are much more complex than moral flexibility.

Quite the opposite, moral flexibility and unilateral trust in one way of thought are the two necessary elements which caused Auschwitz.

It is not a claim: the Hyppocratic Oath states that a doctor is not to harm with his knowledge any human being. Therefore, if an Embryo is continuous with a human being (a human being in potency, by necessity if nothing interferes with its developement) it falls under this cathegory.

Finally your claim that adult stems cells can do similar things to embryonic is false. There still much debate about the topic and the current view is that Adult Stem cells are not as flexible as embryonic and may only take on the form from which they came.

Incorrect, or better, only partly correct. Adult stem cells are less flexible, but for example blood stem cells can become muscle cells, and other kinds of cells as well. There are already experimental methods to cause the regeneration of heart muscles through injections of adult hematic precursors infact. Less flexible, but still flexible enough.

[PacSubCom]

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.

Christian ethics from 2 centuries ago are incompatible with modern knowledge and progress, and will therefore be swept away just like that.

Do you honestly believe that anybody can stop this research, this technology? The rights of the living always trump the rights of the unborn.
The hypocratic oath does only extend to the living, not on the not-yet living. Oh no, the Embryo can develop into a human being, tell you what, every skin cell can develop into a human being, what do you want to do? Never scratch yourself again?

But but... the embryo could develop without any cloning processes and intervention! In our test tube?

"Not yet proven science" is the most stupid concept I ever came across, everybody who uses it as an argument is either ignorant or wants to conform the stupid rabble on the street to his despiccable christian ethics. Every science is unproven, all and each and every single one of them.

Publicly funded science is a necessity. If you let corporations do science, nothing will ever come out of it, because there is no money in fundamental research. If you want to make money you don't do science that may, if you're lucky, pay off in 50 years.

In addition, corporations tend to keep their results confidential, which defeats the whole purpose of science.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Matters of sentience, life, soul are irrelevant: that (the embryo) is something which is continuous and homogeneous with a human being. This means it is not to be touched.

This is entirely subjective. Perhaps to you sentience in regard to life is not important, but to others it is. Why are you right, and they not?

I could give you a whole tirade about why I think sentience is necessary to be considered living, but then that would just be my opinion and all you would have to do is identify it as such. The same goes for your opinion, which is what the statement above unequivocally is.

[Erik]

The private sector can do whatever the hell it wants to. You know why? Because the private sector is smart.

I have two problems with this:
1) If a certain practice is considered so unethical that people don't want their government to do it then how can you still justify allowing the private sector to do it?
Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
I think this should either be banned entirely, or allowed no matter who funds it.
2) the private sector isn't smarter than the government, they just have different goals and interests.
The private sector will only fund scientific research that they think will earn them more money than it costs.
Many fields of research have little or no commercial value, but are still interesting and/or beneficial to humanity.
Just think about everything NASA has ever researched, but also the vast majority of fundamental science in general.

[ErikinWest]

I have two problems with this:
I think this should either be banned entirely, or allowed no matter who funds it.

True, but I think it should be allowed.

2) the private sector isn't smarter than the government, they just have different goals and interests.The private sector will only fund scientific research that they think will earn them more money than it costs.
Many fields of research have little or no commercial value, but are still interesting and/or beneficial to humanity.
Just think about everything NASA has ever researched, but also the vast majority of fundamental science in general.

NASA!!!!! What a colossal waste of money! Think of the additional wealth America would have had if it didn't waste so much money on saving face! Erik, the gov't does a poor job in this type of area, better let the market handle this place.

Erik

[Erik]

NASA!!!!! What a colossal waste of money! Think of the additional wealth America would have had if it didn't waste so much money on saving face!
Erik, the gov't does a poor job in this type of area, better let the market handle this place.

Some things can't be expressed in money.

I really enjoy the pictures from the Hubble telescope and the mars landers.
But then again I'm not the one paying for them.

IIRC everyone of last years Nobel prize winners were Americans.
And the years before it was an almost exclusive American affair too.
I think US Government funding of fundamental science has a lot to do with this.

[ErikinWest]

Some things can't be expressed in money.

I really enjoy the pictures from the Hubble telescope and the mars landers.
But then again I'm not the one paying for them.

No, which is why the gov't of America shouldn't be using taxes for the pleasure of the world's citizens.

IIRC everyone of last years Nobel prize winners were Americans.
And the years before it was an almost exclusive American affair too.
I think US Government funding of fundamental science has a lot to do with this.

Well, I don't know much about the Physics and Chemistry, but the Economic awards have little to nothing to do with government funding. Not only that, some of the Physics awards are for certain theoretical physics which will never benefit any of us (String Theory, Quantum Mechanics).

Erik

[Erik]

No, which is why the gov't of America shouldn't be using taxes for the pleasure of the world's citizens.

Here we disagree, obviously.

btw: I also want to thank the British tax payer for funding a lot of quality BBC shows than I get to watch for free.

Hehe, I almost feel guilty....almost.

some of the Physics awards are for certain theoretical physics which will never benefit any of us (String Theory, Quantum Mechanics).

They won't directly benefit us, but they certainly can benefit us eventually.
Quantum physics could eventually lead to much faster computers, for example. (amongst many things).

That government funded research into building a nuclear fusion plant is also promising I think.

[Erik]

For those who have moral objections against embryonic stem cell research because it destroys the embryo I have this question:
Do you also have the same moral objections against intra-uterine devices (IUD's or "anti-conception coils")?

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intra-uterine_device) 160 million women worldwide use IUD's.
I think it's safe to assume that this means several hundred million embryo's are killed by IUD's each year.
I'm not sure how many embryo's would be destroyed for stem cell research, but I doubt it can even be compared to the number killed by IUD's.

I think this is a fair comparison because embryonic stem cell research kills embryo's in the same stage of development as IUD's do (the blastocyst stage).

Isn't the pro-life lobby aiming way too much of their attention on just a very small issue while almost completely ignoring a much larger one?

[Ummon]

Well you see, they destroy it, but for less dangerous purposes. I wouldn't do it myself, but I wouldn't forbid that either: there's a lot less consequences in abortion than in fabrication and artificialization of human life for pharmaceutical purposes.

Infact it is all but a minor issue. Often, matters of principle and sensibility end making the difference between civilization and chaos.