Scientists Harvest Stem Cells without destroying Embryo - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

AC · 08-24-2006, 12:22 AM

http://health.msn.com/healthnews/art...43549&GT1=8404

This is obviously HUGE to say the least. Opposition to stem cell research has to stop now, no?

Flash Walken · 08-24-2006, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

http://health.msn.com/healthnews/art...43549&GT1=8404

This is obviously HUGE to say the least. Opposition to stem cell research has to stop now, no?

Rationality didn't stop it before, I don't see why it would now.

Nehkara · 08-24-2006, 12:46 AM

This is tremendous. It is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion that stem cell research has been anything but encouraged. The possibilities inherent to the technology could potentially cure dozens of disease and injuries and potentially could be used to recreate organs, bones, or tissue.

I hope those against stem cell research think long and hard about their stance when someone they know gets severe diabetes or a severe spinal cord injury.

I wish my cousin wasn't now quadriplegic and if stem cell research hadn't been blocked so badly, maybe he wouldn't be.

Superflyer · 08-25-2006, 12:43 PM

I think that this is a great advance. I am happy that they can do this. LIke Nehkara said this should not have been stopped in the begining. This technique can save so many lives that it is crazy, and then to just say no.....WTF?
Hopefully this will open the eyes of people and allow them to further the research. Just imagine if this was not stopped back in 01 what diffrences may have been reached by now.

Mr.Coffee · 08-25-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superflyer

I think that this is a great advance. I am happy that they can do this. LIke Nehkara said this should not have been stopped in the begining. This technique can save so many lives that it is crazy, and then to just say no.....WTF?
Hopefully this will open the eyes of people and allow them to further the research. Just imagine if this was not stopped back in 01 what diffrences may have been reached by now.

And yet there remains such dangerous connotations with the technology too...

will it do more bad or good?

Superflyer · 08-25-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

And yet there remains such dangerous connotations with the technology too...

will it do more bad or good?

What kind of bad connotations are there? I am sure there may be some but nothing comes to mind.

Bring_Back_Shantz · 08-25-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superflyer

What kind of bad connotations are there? I am sure there may be some but nothing comes to mind.

Well some aruge that destroying Embryos for the research is unethical because they think that it is a life (I personally don't agree, but i can understand their opinion).

Hopefully this changes things, but the arguement from the other side is that killing the embryo (which they presume to be a human life) is a greater evil than curing a disease. In their eye, the ends (ie improving quality or length of life for one person) does not justify the means (ie destroying what they precieve to be another life).

As I said though hopefully this will help change things, although the opposition will still be there that lives (ie embroys) are being exploited for this research.

ken0042 · 08-25-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superflyer

What kind of bad connotations are there?

I suppose it depends on if you consider me building up an army of super human monkey men to be a "bad" thing or not.

arsenal · 08-25-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superflyer

What kind of bad connotations are there? I am sure there may be some but nothing comes to mind.

While I am all for stem cell research, there will always be a few "mad" scientist types that will play "God" more so than others.
Stem cells should be used to help cure diseases. But there will always be the conservative / religous camp that will want to ban it due to the perception that ones doing the research are playing "God".

That all being said.. who wouldn't want a T-Rex running through downtown? Could make rush hour a little more interesting

Mr.Coffee · 08-25-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superflyer

What kind of bad connotations are there? I am sure there may be some but nothing comes to mind.

Cloning, major identity problems for starters..

Superflyer · 08-25-2006, 08:31 PM

I see lots of people saying that cloning is the big draw back here but if something like this was to happen, it is going to happen weather the government approves it or not. THey can just approve research for curing deseases(sp).

Mr.Coffee · 08-25-2006, 08:41 PM

Hey i agree with you- it is going to happen.

Doesn't mean there isn't drawbacks.

Nehkara · 08-26-2006, 05:38 AM

Complete cloning, IMO, is a little beyond what they can currently do and is very complex.

BUT they can treat diabetes patients by recreating their islet cells and reimplanting them. They can treat spinal cord injuries by injecting stem cells directly into the damaged area of the spinal cord. On the horizon things like replacement organs that have no problems with rejection, or whole new bones in case of a major fracture or crushing injury.

Part of it is that it isn't like they have to destroy 1 embryo for each person saved. They grow the stem cells from a single line from a single embryo and could use them to treat many. However, now that they can do it without destroying the embryo, there should be no problems.

Regorium · 08-26-2006, 06:24 PM

The stock of the company that did this shot up 400% from this announcement. Dammit.

I'm all for stem cell research. I don't think it is actually life unless it can survive on its own. Throw an embryo outside, and it'll just dry up. Through a 7month premature-birth baby outside, it'll still live, and probably trigger some survival instincts.

Displaced Flames fan · 08-26-2006, 09:40 PM

ty

Mccree · 08-26-2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regorium

The stock of the company that did this shot up 400% from this announcement. Dammit.

I'm all for stem cell research. I don't think it is actually life unless it can survive on its own. Throw an embryo outside, and it'll just dry up. Through a 7month premature-birth baby outside, it'll still live, and probably trigger some survival instincts.

Actually a 24 (500 grams, 1/2 kg) week old baby was a 70% survival rate at the Foothills NICU.

I would also fathum a guess that if you throw a fully mature baby outside that chance of survual is VERY VERY low.

Yes I know you are not being quite seroius but your comment did bug me. I guess being a parent of a premmie does that.

Inferno · 08-27-2006, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mccree

I would also fathum a guess that if you throw a fully mature baby outside that chance of survual is VERY VERY low.

You would think so but I actually watched a show last week called "I Shouldnt Be Alive" where this couple and their five month old baby got stranded during a blizzard for 9 days and while the parents ended up getting frostbite the baby came out fine because there's a survival instinct babys have where instead of shivering their arteries narrow so blood flows slower and it puts them in a state of suspended animation which helps them survive long periods of time.

Lupulfan · 08-27-2006, 01:15 AM

How long before the research is complete and it will actually be implemented in society?

Hemi-Cuda · 08-27-2006, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mccree

Actually a 24 (500 grams, 1/2 kg) week old baby was a 70% survival rate at the Foothills NICU.

I would also fathum a guess that if you throw a fully mature baby outside that chance of survual is VERY VERY low.

Yes I know you are not being quite seroius but your comment did bug me. I guess being a parent of a premmie does that.

my view is that something is alive if it thinks, feels, breathes and eats. a baby in the womb after so many months has all those traits (or would if it were born premature), an embryo does not. to me potential for life != life

Mccree · 08-27-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inferno

You would think so but I actually watched a show last week called "I Shouldnt Be Alive" where this couple and their five month old baby got stranded during a blizzard for 9 days and while the parents ended up getting frostbite the baby came out fine because there's a survival instinct babys have where instead of shivering their arteries narrow so blood flows slower and it puts them in a state of suspended animation which helps them survive long periods of time.

I agree it can happen (and does) but it is quite rare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

my view is that something is alive if it thinks, feels, breathes and eats. a baby in the womb after so many months has all those traits (or would if it were born premature), an embryo does not. to me potential for life != life

I also agree with this as well. I am not against stem cell research. My issue was more with the way regorium worded his comments. All I was pointed out is that a child born at 22-24 weeks (500 grams) has a pretty decent chance of survival.