What do you guys think about this (regarding stem cell research)?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_sc/stem_cells

Just wanted to get a moral perspective on it...

This question is for everyone, no matter what your religious/non-religious affiliation is.

Thanks for your answers so far! If anyone's interested, I think it's amazing. I'm VERY excited about it!

Answer 1

Stem cell research, for the good of all mankind should move full steam ahead.

Answer 2

Hooray! I am with Rick. I have never understood why the religious community stuck their nose in, what is clearly scientific territory.
Considering that the stem cells were being taken from 'dead tissue' what was the problem? At least some good could have come from that.
Important research could have ALREADY found cures for nerve damage done to spines, and the cure for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, and research into so many more areas that could have been done, HAD they had the viable stem cells to work with, instead of having to stretch what material they had.
What a waste. What a terrible waste of not getting that tissue from aborted fetuses, and have it go to something good.
Government needs to stay out of science, like religion needs to stay out of government.
It is a great pity, that neither will occur.

Answer 3

MithrilH: "...why are people still trying to use cells from aborted babies?"

You have no idea what you're talking about. The stem cells used is research are obtained from fertilized human eggs, created in vitro, in which the cells have not yet differentiated. We're talking about clumps of cells, not bodies. If they're not used for research, they'll be discarded.

My understanding is that stem cells obtained from zygotes are better because, over time, cells degrade: a first generation cell is "fresher" than a thousandth generation cell.

Answer 4

It is amazing and exciting news. If they can solve the DNA sequence disruption problem it holds vast potential.

Morally, I have no problem with it. Of course, I am also not opposed to the use of excess embryos from fertility clinics for research rather than have them destroyed as medical waste. The use of skin cells, however, is a much less slippery slope.

The problem with this whole debate is that, because of an uninformed minority in this country, we have fallen behind many other countries in our research. The basis for this research came from embryonic stem cell research in Japan using frozen embryos. Without that, this "breakthrough" would not have been possible. A comprehensive screen of the activity of more than 30,000 genes showed that the so-called “induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells” are similar, though not identical, to embryonic stem cells.

The human iPS cells injected under the skin of mice produced tumors after nine weeks.

So, while this research is promising, it would not have been possible without Japan's lack of restrictions on blastocyst research. Who knows how much further we be without OUR restrictions?

Answer 5

Researchers are feverishly trying to figure out how to create therapeutically viable stem cells that do not rely on use of fetal tissue so as to avoid the moral conundrum and social brouhaha about this area of medical research. That is what this article is about. Meanwhile, other countries are surpassing the US in medical research, funding for stem cell research basically relies on private (not government) funding, and fertility clinics are ironically chock full (like, hundreds of thousands) of human embryos that are in stasis and will either stay that way indefinitely or eventually be destroyed when they could be used for science.

Answer 6

The groups with so-called "moral objections" should just stay out of it. If people in their families developed illnesses that could be treated with stem cells, I believe that those moral, upright citizens would change their tune in a big damn hurry. It's easy to get all worked up into a moralistic kerfluffle when it doesn't involve you.

It's great that scientists can do this with skin cells, but they should never have had to.

Answer 7

I'll start off by saying I'm an atheist, but I understand why stem cell research is against religion and is looked down upon. Its based on beliefs, which people should respect. This new type of stem cell is great, because it does not harm the unborn. It is simply your own skin cells that will eventually grow back anyway. In my eyes its like donating blood, you make new blood all the time. I say, if a few skin cells can treat cancer and create cures for diseases, then it should absolutely happen.

Answer 8

stem cell research should be a priority in this country. forget the religious 'why's and get to common sense research. many people need cures for a lot of disorders that could be cured, perhaps before birth, if stem cell research were legal. i believe it is murder on the part of christians and the government to deny a person a chance to life because of religious convictions. religion should not be used in deciding the law.

Answer 9

"The White House lauded the papers, saying such research is what President Bush was advocating when he twice vetoed legislation to pave the way for taxpayer-funded embryo research.

There is a catch with the new technique. At this point, it requires disrupting the DNA of the skin cells, which creates the potential for developing cancer. So it would be unacceptable for the most touted use of embryonic cells: creating transplant tissue that in theory could be used to treat diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injury."


Our fundie president decides to act like a president just to veto potentially life research. what a moron.

This subject just infuriates me. I want the fundies out of our government.

Answer 10

I think stem cell research at any level is great... It has the potential of blowing the roof off medicine as we know it and should be pursued....

From a moral perspective there is no change for me, I never saw embryonic cell research as immoral or unethical ..

Answer 11

This new approach, using a person's own cells to produce stem cells, creates no moral problem, and promises much better therapeutic value than using stem cells from human embryos.
You don't need to kill an embryo.
And the genetic material will be a perfect match for the patient.
This should eliminate any "need" to harvest human embryos for their stem cells, and I am heartily glad of that.
Of course there will still be those who want to do it.
But since the new technique has much greater therapeutic promise, the harvesting of embryos for "medical" purposes should be a thing of the past.