- October 30, 2004 at 5:11 pm #188FreedomParticipant
What does everyone think of embryonic stem cell research?
- November 1, 2004 at 1:55 am #18625ArsonusParticipant
I believe that it comes close to crossing the line to ammoral. When one uses only embryos “left over” from, say, impotence concieving (I can’t think of the correct term, but, you know, the things where one or the other person is impotent, and they get sperm and eggs, and, ya know the two cells do their stuff), it’s all right. But, producing it for the purpose just of researching… That’s like abortion, that is.
- November 3, 2004 at 7:51 am #18627BioBoyParticipant
I think that research itself is harmless – it’s any use of such research results that should be debated…
- November 11, 2004 at 6:08 am #18628
I think that it should be left up to the patients. I mean, isn’t it wrong to deny a patient any medical procedure? My personal thought is that stem cells should only be used to save lives…not to simply improve the human body. I could accept destroying potentiallife to save a relative’s, but I think it would be wrong to do so to regrow nerve tissue so someone could walk. They can live without their legs, right? It’s a pro/con type deal.
I am actually writing out a research/argumentative paper. If anyone wants me to post it somewhere when I am through, I would do so.
- November 14, 2004 at 4:19 am #18640ArsonusParticipant
So, do you think that abortion is one of those medical procedures? That’s the problem, you see. You can’t say that any medical procedure should be grantable; that opens the door to all sorts of things.
- November 14, 2004 at 7:51 am #18642
Like I said…leave it up to each individual patient. Regardless of your or my beliefs, it is not the same as everyone else’s. Please read my previous post again carefully. There are pros and cons to each side of any argument. Also remember that in stem cells, most are obtained from unviable embryos.
Also remember where you are, and who you are posting to. No good scientist would EVER address the good/evil argument. It is not our place. We present the facts of what we can learn how to do to benefit someone. The people must decide. If they decide to allow stem cells to be used, blame them.
Want my opinion? Ok. I am in school to become a doctor. I would prefer NOT to say to one of my patients, “I’m sorry, I am not allowed to save your life because someone else said that an unused embryo is more important than you.”
- December 8, 2004 at 4:20 pm #18718sarabeth86Participant
Stem cell research is looked down upon by so many people. I don’t seem to see why exactly that is. Sure, people find it to be immoral to use embryonic stem cells, but why? What if a mother were to abort her child and had no other use for the fetus? Why couldn’t scientists use that aborted fetus to further the scientific world of today and possibly help those people that are in need of the research to better their lives? That doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m trying to preach to people anyway. I have been working on a paper for my english class and a debate for my government class ont he subject of stem cell research. While doing the research for both assignments, I have begun to really understand the basics of stem cell research and what all it can do for the human race. I find the subject amazing and while I’m not too good at cell biology, I am really interested in the subject of stem cell research. I am going into Zoology and planning to go to medical school with it to either become a pediatric oncologist or a pathologist and I just find it amazing as to what stem cells can do for the body and what stem cell research can do to help the human race! What does everyone else think?
- December 8, 2004 at 5:38 pm #18719
Sarabeth, you are absolutely right. The reason that people look down apon stem cell research because to obtain the stem cells, the embryo must be destroyed. While it is true that MOST embryonic stem cells are obtained from aborted fetuses, there still is resistance to this. The reason for this is that those opposing to make abortions illegal do NOT want these stem cells used. Why? Because it is “a consolation to abortions, making something good come out of evil.” The argument to keep abortions legal now includes the fact that an abortion potentially could save lives.
As a pre-med student, I’ve been working my undergrad degree almost exclusively in the field of ESC’s.
- December 8, 2004 at 9:06 pm #18721sarabeth86Participant
I agree with you. It’s not like the scientists are making people get abortions, but if someone happens to get an abortion, why not make something good come out of it? No need to just throw the fetus away…use it for science…it really isn’t doing anything wrong in the whole situation. The abortion process is bad, but taking those fetuses and trying to further science is not…people need to understand all of this!
- December 9, 2004 at 1:37 am #18722
I’m working on a paper that’s due tomorrow…when I get it done, hopefully I’ll be able to post it on the website.
- January 6, 2005 at 4:29 am #19013ThenewguyParticipant
I had no idea that stem cells came from a fetus (call me ignorant, I’m new) can someone tell me at what stage the fetus no longer has stem cells that researchers can utilize??
- January 6, 2005 at 7:09 am #19014
When all tissues of the fetus are done forming…there is no set stage where this happens…just the older the child becomes, the less stem cells there are.
- January 6, 2005 at 7:49 pm #19021ThenewguyParticipant
Thanks Biostudent – you rock! 😆
Is it possible to remove stem cells without harming the fetus?
- January 28, 2005 at 1:27 am #19189quote biostudent84:
– that would be nice
I agree with you that it should be up to the patient! One of my famly members has a spinal cord injury and it would be great if he could walk again. The only problem would be to regulate how it is used and that it isn’t used for the wrong purposes.
- January 28, 2005 at 5:23 am #19193ajedrezParticipant
Firstly, I would like to debunk some myths that I found posted here: for a first, stem cells DO NOT lessen as a person ages. Let us take the bone marrow for example. It is a major source of stem cells and acts as the produce of white blood cells. As the white blood cells get destroyed, they must be replaced if the immune systme is to be maintained. The body does not simply pull white blood cells out of thin air, it uses oligopotent stem cells located within the bone marrow to act as templates from which the white platelets are created. The same follows for the brain where many stem cells have been found as well. Contrary to popular belief, the loss of cellular mass in the brain is far from irreversible. Once again oligopotent stem cells, stem cells that can produce only one cell in a range of aproximately 6 out of 210 various cells, reform and recreate lost and killed brain cells. Now to awnswer a few questions: A scientist has a time frame of approximately 10 days, starting from day 6 after fertilization, to harvest the ICM, intra cellular mass (stem cells(embryonic)), to obtain pluripotent embryonic stem cells. After this time frame, the scientists can still harvest stem cells but they will be in the form of adult stem cells. If one wishes to obtain EBRYONIC stem cells, the fetus (actually a blastocyst) is always killed. The blastocyst does not render a fetus like shape until day 21. I personally do not understand why people fight over the study of stem cells due to the following reason: fertility clinics collect a supply of unused and unclaimed pre-fertilized embryos which they continually keep until 5 years after their date of creation. At this point, by STATE MANDATE, the zygotic masses must be destryoed. It suprises me that this specific issue does not take precedence over stemcell research. It would seem more logical to spend the yearly disposed amount of 340000 liters of zygotic mass in more fruitful ways. To me, it is all much ado about nothing. If that account may seem as a weak argument as to the justification of stem cell research in general, allow me to say thus: Adult stem cells work in the same manner as embryonic stem cells and can be obtained from foreskin of circumsized babies, which is normally disposed of. These stem cells can be manipulated, through various methods, ranging from denucleation to forcing the cells to form various functions, and in the same manner as embryonic stem cells, be used to create replacemnt organs and skin grafts. 1 sq cm of foreskin can be used to generate 6 football fields of graft skin.
- February 2, 2005 at 3:34 am #19325BioDork101Participant
we all know that everyone has different ethical beliefs about stem cell researching, but we also all know that we have opinions! I was reading the above posts and there was this one comment about how if we used a potential embroyonic cell to save a relative, its okay. But then if we used it to save a person who has lost the function of their legs or to use it to help repair the spinal cord of a stranger, it’s wrong. How is it different to save a relative of which the embroyonic cell has come from than it is to save a stranger? Say…If you saw someone drowning and u knew you could save them, would u stand there and let them die? or would u give it a try and save them? If the study of these embroyonic cells can succeed even further, then we have every possibility to cure every human disease out there! These are just my thoughts, if u want to give me your views, please e-mail me because this was my very first post on this site. My e-mail is [email protected], my names cici so i really wanna hear from everyone else. This is my current topic for an original oratory debate, so please give me an email and help me out here. Your opinion is very appreciated but please no hate mail for what i belive in. Thanks!
- February 3, 2005 at 4:03 pm #19350quote ajedrez:
Nice “debunking,” Ajedrez. Do you even know what these stem cells are? You do NOT refer to the ESM, or Embryonic Stem Cell. You are talking about the Hematopoietic Stem cells found in bone marrow. I would like you to take note that the only EFFECTIVE therapy these stem cells can be used for is to make new blood cells. Hematopoietic have been attempted to be used in other areas of the body. For example, they have been implanted into damaged heart tissue. However, these hematopoietic cells were ONLY able to create replacement cells having the basic structural form of original heart tissue. Any further similaraties ended here as the replacement cells proved to be NON FUNCTIONAL
Embryonic stem cells are the ONLY type of stem cell that has the ability to effectively replace any damaged tissue in the human body. See my thread called “Kyle’s Stem Cell Paper” for further information.
- February 10, 2005 at 2:37 am #19488RobJimParticipant
The problem with embryonic stem cell research is not the research itself, but obtaining the cells. People opposed to this kind of research don’t want to encourage abortions by using the aborted embryos as raw material for science.
I myself am not bothered by abortions, so I am fine with the research. However I respect the other perspective. I am unsure about how this issue should be addressed.
- February 10, 2005 at 4:28 am #19490SciencebelieverParticipantquote RobJim:
I totally agree… be it as it may im only 16 and am about to finish my first year of biology.. I myself are also catholic.. But i do belive that the church is going to extremes or anyone is when they say that embyos are alive people… Though they may be grwoing doest mean they have all the function as well as any thought process or brain as an embyo anyway… I would also like to add that Embryos should be compared to a plant.. growing but no actual thought process. Plants cant justufy whast right or wrong or… for all we know “feel” either. How can we say that a embryo that does not even have a brain at the stage where scientists are “killing” them, that they have rights as every other human being. When you look at the equation stem cells are much more capable to the already developed and focused adult cells…(for those not as educated in the area… the only reason i am is cause we are currently studying that in my sophmore biology class) Adult stem cells can only be grown into the source they came from… eg. a skin cell grows to more skin. Also adult cells are not everlasting as the stem cells from embryos. They dont always keep reproducing. Whereas Embryonic stem cells are called “immortal” becuase they keep reporucing till stopped by more cells or a cover. e.g. “when lined with collagen ina perti dish these stem cells will grow into skin cells till they reach the outer ends of the stem cells.”
Obviously my conclusion is simple.. embryos can be comparative to plants and are essential for the curing ofmany disease with more research
( i hope that i do sound pretty smart for 16… LOL)
- February 11, 2005 at 5:23 am #19523RobJimParticipant
I think you do sound very smart for 16.
The official Catholic stance I believe is that the ‘soul’ (whatever that is) enters the fertilized egg at the moment of conception. This means that destroying this cell or the fetus that comes from it is murder, according to them.
This is where the anti-abortion and anti-contraception stance comes from, I think.
- February 11, 2005 at 9:35 pm #19540SciencebelieverParticipant
thx… o i didnt know the “official catholic viewpoint” … well now that i know i guess i can see where they’re coming from i huess but still i dont really think that that is really important in the fact that the US has “Separation of Church and State” so any government sponsored researches.. etc. should not and cannot be influenced by religion soo i do think the efofrt at protesting is not going to do much in this situation.
- February 13, 2005 at 2:40 am #19551
Thank you Sciencebeliever for making the point about Separation of Church and State… But religions can still get around that – intelligent design is still being taught in schools 😕
- February 19, 2005 at 8:45 pm #19707jaboParticipant
When the first quadrapalegic is walking around as a result of stem cell research, then the resistance will go away.
- February 20, 2005 at 1:14 am #19710
Current methods aren’t successful but future research may be able to coax adult stem cells into pluripotent cells. In the mean time, I think the most important thing the government can do is to let science, not politics decide.
- February 22, 2005 at 7:34 pm #19737
Maybe its just me but is someone is willing to give up their unborn child to scientific research does anyone at all really have a say in whether that is right or wrong?
- February 22, 2005 at 8:40 pm #19739
No one is saying unborn child, it’s aborted embryos.
- February 23, 2005 at 4:27 pm #19756goatParticipant
Honestly… Man! It wasn’t me! It was the potatoe! I believe that reality is gone, but on a more serious note i beleieve that the research can be highly beneficial and should be encouaged. How ever it should only occur when the circumstances permit it with out harming a potential life.
- February 23, 2005 at 5:03 pm #19757
That’s were it gets hard… how do you define potential life?
- February 23, 2005 at 8:41 pm #19770
If cloning works, everything is potential life because you can implant egg cells with nucleuses from almost any cell.
- February 23, 2005 at 9:13 pm #19777
Please explain “everything is potential life” – Are you sure about that or are you speculating?
- February 24, 2005 at 12:12 am #19787
Sry, I meant everything as in cells. If cloning works, any cell with a nucleus should be able to be cloned into a full organism.
- February 24, 2005 at 7:34 pm #19830
Firstly let me say that I was wrong in refering to an aborted fetus as an unborn child. Secondly I think that sophmore Sciencebeliever was right when he said that fetus’s were similer to plants because if everything is potential life then it should be respected, but only as much as we respect a plant
- February 24, 2005 at 8:43 pm #19836
We don’t really respect plants, we eat them.
- February 25, 2005 at 7:21 pm #19857
In some religions it is costumary to thank a plant or the “Mother Earth” before harvesting or processing the plant(s). It is similar to what Native Americans did before consuming an animal but in this day and age “Plant Respect” is only practiced in very small cirlces in very remote areas.
- February 25, 2005 at 8:37 pm #19864
What does that have to do with stem cell research?
- February 27, 2005 at 5:58 pm #19915BayAreaGuyParticipant
I find it difficult to take any of these posts seriously as most of you seem unable to use terms correctly or spell. How can a supposed “pre-med student,” and so many of you like-minded users, be so interested in biology and related sciences, yet so woefully unable to express yourselves? I mean, what am I to do with an opinion from someone who cannot even spell “upon”?
Even worse, you’re throwing around words like “embryo” and “fetus” as if they’re the same thing. If you don’t know the stages of reproductive development any better than that, you shouldn’t even be posting in a Yahoo group, let alone on a site called “Biology-Online.org”! It’s Zygote (conception to 2 weeks), Embryo (2 weeks to 2 months), and Fetus (2 months to birth). And if you think that’s picking nits, then you’re worse off than I thought. Proposing stem-cell harvesting during the zygotic stage is very different from proposing it during the embryonic or fetal stages. Zygotes don’t have brains, for one thing!
So, my advice is that you at least learn the material a Biology 101 textbook before posting your ramblings about something as complex as Stem Cell Research. You people are trying to produce a laser of opinion with the friction of your two-sticks-rubbing-together knowledge. That’s a dangerous thing when you consider its possible effect on public opinion.
- February 27, 2005 at 6:02 pm #19916
- February 27, 2005 at 9:16 pm #19922
Thank-you for your concerns BayAreaGuy… I hope you will continue to contribute to this site. However I would like to point out to you that this site is open to the public so people with large amounts of knowledge in the field of biology post here as well as those new to the field. This is a place for those new comers to learn about biology, to build upon their knowledge of the topic and to learn and understand it. They may ask questions that don’t make sense or don’t have any point, but through those questions (which may seem stupid to you but seem difficult to the ones asking them) they learn new things. I have learned many facts from this site and I hope that you will help those in need for answers.
- March 2, 2005 at 8:50 pm #19983snRPS564Participantquote biostudent84:
And what about heart attack sufferers? sure they could live with damaged cardiac tissue, but if we have a chance to figure out a way to regrow damaged tissue or nerves, then we owe it to them to try.
- March 2, 2005 at 10:48 pm #19986
- March 10, 2005 at 12:25 am #20293snRPS564Participantquote Fayt:
in truth, the use of ESCs is not mere “scientific research”. Were dealing with science that could save millions of lives, cure every disease. we are not using babies in eceryday experimentation. we are using undeveloped embryos, that, once aborted, are normally thrown out and wasted. people are not trying to tell mothers to abort their children for science. those fetuses that are aborted, however, should be used.
- March 18, 2005 at 12:13 am #20625
- March 18, 2005 at 1:34 am #20631quote snRPS564:
It’s my belief that every case should have its own review to whether or not it should recieve stem cell therapy. Only those whos lives are in danger should recieve the treatments.
But then again, I am not a politician…it’s not up to me to decide what should/will be done with stem cells. *points at signature*
- March 30, 2005 at 9:01 pm #20969andycarson22Participant
Embryonic Stem cells are the wave of the future. If I had a disease such as Parkinsons or was paralyzed, I would want to be cured. It is human nature to want to continue to live. There is not a single person that would want to be parlayed or blind if they didn’t have to be. The research that is being done to cure these ailments is groundbreaking. I am lucky enough to live in New Jersey where stem cell research may become a reality very soon. There is quite a push here in the Garden State for the research to excel. New Jersey will soon be the Mecca of stem cell research bringing world recognition to the state. ES cell treatment will not go away, it is the future!
- April 1, 2005 at 10:36 pm #21020
We still have a long way to go… we need to understand how a ES cell becomes specialized and the signals that are involved with the process of specialization.
- April 2, 2005 at 6:47 pm #21026MrMisteryParticipant
We don’t know that yet? SO that’s why my teacher wouldn’t tell me 😀 😀
- April 2, 2005 at 11:31 pm #21032quote MrMistery:
We know that during specialization, some genes are turned on or off. We just haven’t discovered the mechanism that controls it yet.
- April 6, 2005 at 3:42 pm #21104carand22Participant
I have to agree with andycarson22, when they say that embryonic stem cells are the future and that New Jersey may become the Mecca of stem cells. I am from NJ and see wide support for the research around the state.
- April 7, 2005 at 6:13 am #21134cytochromePParticipant
AIIMS (Delhi) which is India’s premier medical research centre just became the FIRST institute to successfully apply stem cell therapy to treat patients.
- April 27, 2005 at 8:14 pm #21803jennaParticipant
Hey Biostudent 89
I would really like to know what your paper is on . . . . ❓
I agree with you and others about the stem cell reseach. Also I think the public just needs to be “INFORMED”
- April 27, 2005 at 8:16 pm #21805jennaParticipant
Plus in response to when they take the stem cell usually it is with a 4-8 day period after pregnancy! (bad at spelling)
- May 5, 2005 at 11:16 pm #22146PlanoscienceParticipant
I’m not much of a scientist, but can’t an umbilical cord from a newborn supply stem cells for study? Are these stem cells not as useful, and if not why are they charging families out the wazoo to store them in case of future illness. If they are, then why throw umbilical cords away? And why would one need to use aborted humans. I think the whole business of using aborted babies is being used to help promote abortions. To ease the conscience of those who have them, but that’s besides the point.
And the argument that it is not for scientists to decide the moral value is just ridiculous. It is true that not all people feel the same about certain issues, but for some one who has objections to abortions to benefit from one could be morally wrong for them. It could be considered equal to buying a stollen car, or accepting money that was aquired by violence. One did not necessarily commit the act, but by exploiting the situation, condones the act by which it came about. Some would not have a problem with it, while others would, including scientists doing the research.
I am not trying to be argumentative. I am just trying to point out something you may not have considered. As I said I am not much of a scientist so if one could answer the questions I posed it would be appreciated.
- May 25, 2005 at 3:50 pm #23077xChaoticxStarxParticipant
Okay, stem cell research… Yeah. I’m do a speech on it on the 7th/8th. 😯 I’m all for the stem cell junk because, I mean… imagine being paralised from the waist down. Wouldn’t YOU want to walk again? 😕 They may use aborted fetuses.. But sometimes they also use embryos or eggs that people donate to fertility clinics! I figured, the fetuses are being thrown out anywho, so why not let it be up to the parent of that fetus to decide weather they want to save a 10 year old parallised chid, a 75 year old man from Alzheimers, or a kid with diabetes… You know? 😕
- May 26, 2005 at 6:33 am #23120rads11Participant
i got a question ..iam not too well-versed abt the stem cell thingy n iws jus goin thru some of the discussion …so..are adult stem cells as effective as embryonic stem cells ?(i saw someone state that they r)i am jus not too convinced..if they r then y not use adult stem cells itself ..y bother usin embryonic stem cells n allow ethics to creep into research
- June 9, 2005 at 4:46 am #24103WinterParticipant
That comment that Planoscience made about harvesting stem cells from umbilical cords is quite interesting. Does anyone have an answer to that? I’m new to this site and this is the first discussion I’ve viewed. I read through the whole thing and have found it to be extremely refreshing to see all the different viewpoints people had to offer on this issue.
- November 18, 2005 at 9:09 pm #33067
😈 The child may no longer have embryonic stem cells but they still have adult stem cells which means that if they further that research than they can figure out the point at which the fetus no longer has useable embryonic stem cells which may be as close to birth as a few days.
- November 18, 2005 at 9:19 pm #33068
The cathlic church says that the fetus has a soul from the moment of conception. But what they aren’t considering is that if the soul inhabits the body from the time of conception then twins would only have a half of a soul. because there aren’t enough cell for them to divide into two embryos until about twnety five days into the pregnancy. even before it shows up on a test they could seperate into twins. then the cathlic church would be proven wrong. Or does god take another soul and give half to each unbornchild when they split.
- November 18, 2005 at 11:35 pm #33077Terry K.Participant
I am a christian and I don’t want to get into the whole dispute about religion, but I believe that God can create a soul for a new being at any time he wants to. Now, on the matter of the stem cells, I believe that, if and only if, if the parents are going to abort the child, pay them some money to carry the fetus until the stem cells are at the greatest capacity, and then reask them if they want to abort the baby to make sure, and if they yes, then abort it and take the stem cells. This also applies to miscarriages if it is possible to harvest stem cells from a miscarriage. The one thing I don’t think is true is the fact that adult stem cells are as good as fetus stem cells, just because of the fact that everything in the body, not just enzymes, denatures, thus the reason why our cells divide. I believe that this denaturing causes the stem cells to give way to time and not be nearly as useful for stem cell research, but I am GUNG-HO about the study because I sure as heck don’t want to be paralyzed or die young because of a bad vital organ. But that’s just what I think.
- November 21, 2005 at 2:09 pm #33178meeeeeeeeParticipant
wouldnt you say stem cell research is merely a way of cheating deahth
- November 21, 2005 at 9:00 pm #33190senkhisisParticipantquote Terry K.:
Actually, the issue isn’t about denaturation as much as it is a question of potency. A paper discussing the difference between totipotent, pluripotent, multipotentquote :
No more than a vaccine or any other modern medical procedure.
- November 23, 2005 at 7:58 pm #33353
😈 But stem cell research is more of a way of cheating death because yes while we might take a vaccine to survive the flu each year it doesn’t have the potential to completely reverse the effects of a disease.
- November 23, 2005 at 8:00 pm #33354MrMisteryParticipant
So? Do you have a death wish?
- May 10, 2006 at 2:03 am #48188kyledavisParticipant
i would love to seet his reasearch paper you are working on…
- May 12, 2006 at 5:01 pm #48291neuro5Participant
I don’t find anything wrong with it, and I’m personally opposed to abortion. For one thing, these cells that they are using are going to go to waste otherwise. Whether you find in vitro fertilization right or wrong, they are going to go to waste. So I don’t see it as an abortion. And from what I’ve heard, they want to get it where they can just clone one cell and make infinte lines. I see no problem with that, because no abortion is occurring, and you are merely making an exact replica of a cell that otherwise would’ve been sitting in a freezer forever.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.