Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Is Stem Cell Research The Modern Version Of Cadaver Study?

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Is Stem Cell Research The Modern Version Of Cadaver Study?

    Back in the day it was illegal because of religious reasons for a doctor or scientist to study cadavers. They did anyway by buying dead bodies from grave robbers. Lucky they did because it advanced the medical field greatly.

    Now we want to study Stem Cells but religious groups again are trying to stop it, why?

    What are religious groups afraid of?

    Do they think they can actually stop it from happening?

    Also, working on cadavers is a normal thing that doctor and scientist do now so should religious groups try to stop them from doing this or in 20 years are they just going to give up on Stem Cell research just like they did on cadaver studies after they figured out that it helped people?

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    b/c religious groups want to push back the clock and live like puritans..the good old days when women pregnant out of wedlock had to wear scarlet letters, when homos were banned from all public life, when 'foreigners' (Blacks) were looked upon with great suspician, and when if pennicilun failed so be it...

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bman]b/c religious groups want to push back the clock and live like puritans..the good old days when women pregnant out of wedlock had to wear scarlet letters, when homos were banned from all public life, when 'foreigners' (Blacks) were looked upon with great suspician, and when if pennicilun failed so be it...[/QUOTE]


    Did you mean penicillin?

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,433
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the biggest problem people have with experimenting on embryos is that they consider the embryo a life. What I don't understand is why they are not outraged at in-vitro clinics who discard unused embryos after a period of time. If it is a life, isn't throwing it in the garbage a bad thing?

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]I think the biggest problem people have with experimenting on embryos is that they consider the embryo a life. What I don't understand is why they are not outraged at in-vitro clinics who discard unused embryos after a period of time. If it is a life, isn't throwing it in the garbage a bad thing?[/QUOTE]


    If they are going to end up discarded then they might as well use them to help the advancement of the medical field. What else are they going to do with them? If need be have a Priest, Rabbi, Monk or whatever, say a pray over them and then let scientist study them.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,433
    Post Thanks / Like
    Exactly Mick. I think human cloning fears play heavily into it. People watch and believe too much Sc-Fi channel sh*t. Human cloning isn't like the army of Boba Fetts from Star Trek. Even if you cloned an exact replica of yourself it would not end up exactly the same as you. Every person is the sum of their experiences. Identical twins are clones of each other, but never end up the same because each one has different experiences in life.

    Tiki and Rhonde...

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]I think the biggest problem people have with experimenting on embryos is that they consider the embryo a life. What I don't understand is why they are not outraged at in-vitro clinics who discard unused embryos after a period of time. If it is a life, isn't throwing it in the garbage a bad thing?[/QUOTE]



    This is a great point!
    If people are so outraged with using human embryos as sources for stem cell research why arent they equally outraged with the whole concept of In vitro Fertilization in general. Thousands of embryos are wasted every year in IVF clinics across the country. Federal money goes into supporting many of these so programs. So why no outrage?

    If you are against federal funds supporting embryonic stem cell research because you think its a waste of money then simply say so and explain yourself as to why you believe there is no future in this science. Dont tell us that nothing has come out of it yet b/c as a scientist, that is unacceptable. It takes decades sometimes generations of work before something great may be discovered. Every great discovery was preceeded by an incredible number of failures. In science its unheard of not to have failures before you are successful. Thing is , no one ever hears about the failures.

    If you know now that there is no way that this area will ever develop then tell us , and back it up with some scientefic evidence, not political talk.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    You guys need to be more careful with your language. Relgious groups are not opposed to stem cell research. In fact, The Catholic Church has given millions and millions of dollars to support stem cell research.

    This is a complicated issue. Much more actual clinical success has been achieved via adult stem cells, as opposed to embryonic stem cells. Bush didn't ban anything, and embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. Yes, many religious people and others have moral issues with creating embryos for the express purpose of destroying them, sure. But that is a far cry from being against stem cell research, as if all stem cell research is the same. Limiting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to existing lines is one thing, however, we are talking about a sum of $40m or so, which is but a mere drop compared to the over $2.5bn being spent in the private sector.

    Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated and thus eaiser to manipulate than adult stem cells, which is why they are attractive. However, adult stem cells are more resilient, it seems. The important thing to remember here is that clinical success for both is far, far less impressive than people actually realize.

    This is a deeply complicated issue. My brother in law in a biochemist and has explained the issues to me and directed me to scholarly papers about it and I barely understanding 1% of this issue. Simplistic sloganeering like is being done on this thread is laughably ignorant and pointless. The cadaver analogy is also laughable. Hey, experimenting on live human would very much help us increase our knowledge rapidly and may help people, but it is also an issue that deeply offends many people on a moral level and would harm the people being experimented on. The Nazis learned a lot when they experimented on live people. The eugenics movement was very much in vogue among the American intellectual elite in this country, with none other than the Supreme Court declaring that retarded people couild lawfully be forcibly sterliized. It took thje horrors of the Nazis and what they did to finally open up Americans' eyes to the moral bankruptcy and logical ends of such a philosophy of having third parties qualify whose life is and isn't worth living.

    Eugenics was quite popular and no one who supported it at the time likely thought the same philosophy coud be used to justify the Nazis' murderous bigotry, it was. That is the logical next step once you allow whatever third party happens to be in power to define what lives are worthless.

    Things like this are always wrapped in pious rhetoric. For a generation now we have justified the killing of our young using pious rhetoric about women's rights or reducing crime rates or being "senstive" to this or that...meanwhile 40 million people have been killed since Roe. Weh ave devalued human life, rationalizing this brutal murder by saying the children weren't wanted, or aren't children, or aren't human, or weren't alive or would have had sh*tty lives anyway.

    These are important things to consider and villifying anyone who opposes your view as ignorant is destructive, arrogant and a clear indication of a lack or moral or intellectual seriousness. Grow the f*ck up.

    I've contributed money to stem cell research, have YOU?? The people who rip on "religious" people being backward and ignorant - how much have YOU contributed to this issue? Yeah, people who go to religious services regularly are really the problem with this country today. Gosh, most of them are perfectly nice, forgiving, stable, loving and raise children with strong values. What a-holes. They are killing our country! Put that sh*t on toast and stio your ignorant chirping.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]This is a great point!
    If people are so outraged with using human embryos as sources for stem cell research why arent they equally outraged with the whole concept of In vitro Fertilization in general. Thousands of embryos are wasted every year in IVF clinics across the country. Federal money goes into supporting many of these so programs. So why no outrage?

    If you are against federal funds supporting embryonic stem cell research because you think its a waste of money then simply say so and explain yourself as to why you believe there is no future in this science. Dont tell us that nothing has come out of it yet b/c as a scientist, that is unacceptable. It takes decades sometimes generations of work before something great may be discovered. Every great discovery was preceeded by an incredible number of failures. In science its unheard of not to have failures before you are successful. Thing is , no one ever hears about the failures.

    If you know now that there is no way that this area will ever develop then tell us , and back it up with some scientefic evidence, not political talk.[/QUOTE]


    Uh, people ARE outraged at in vitro processes.

    Kenny - do you support experimenting on live humans? If not, why not?

    You know negatives cannot be proven. You know no one can say definitively that there is no future in X. You know this. Your argument is a red herring.

    Why is embrynoic stem cell research better than adult and if it is, why has adult stem cell research produced more clinical success to date?

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]You guys need to be more careful with your language. Relgious groups are not opposed to stem cell research. In fact, The Catholic Church has given millions and millions of dollars to support stem cell research.

    This is a complicated issue. Much more actual clinical success has been achieved via adult stem cells, as opposed to embryonic stem cells. Bush didn't ban anything, and embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. Yes, many religious people and others have moral issues with creating embryos for the express purpose of destroying them, sure. But that is a far cry from being against stem cell research, as if all stem cell research is the same. Limiting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to existing lines is one thing, however, we are talking about a sum of $40m or so, which is but a mere drop compared to the over $2.5bn being spent in the private sector.

    Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated and thus eaiser to manipulate than adult stem cells, which is why they are attractive. However, adult stem cells are more resilient, it seems. The important thing to remember here is that clinical success for both is far, far less impressive than people actually realize.

    This is a deeply complicated issue. My brother in law in a biochemist and has explained the issues to me and directed me to scholarly papers about it and I barely understanding 1% of this issue. Simplistic sloganeering like is being done on this thread is laughably ignorant and pointless. The cadaver analogy is also laughable. Hey, experimenting on live human would very much help us increase our knowledge rapidly and may help people, but it is also an issue that deeply offends many people on a moral level and would harm the people being experimented on. The Nazis learned a lot when they experimented on live people. The eugenics movement was very much in vogue among the American intellectual elite in this country, with none other than the Supreme Court declaring that retarded people couild lawfully be forcibly sterliized. It took thje horrors of the Nazis and what they did to finally open up Americans' eyes to the moral bankruptcy and logical ends of such a philosophy of having third parties qualify whose life is and isn't worth living.

    Eugenics was quite popular and no one who supported it at the time likely thought the same philosophy coud be used to justify the Nazis' murderous bigotry, it was. That is the logical next step once you allow whatever third party happens to be in power to define what lives are worthless.

    Things like this are always wrapped in pious rhetoric. For a generation now we have justified the killing of our young using pious rhetoric about women's rights or reducing crime rates or being "senstive" to this or that...meanwhile 40 million people have been killed since Roe. Weh ave devalued human life, rationalizing this brutal murder by saying the children weren't wanted, or aren't children, or aren't human, or weren't alive or would have had sh*tty lives anyway.

    These are important things to consider and villifying anyone who opposes your view as ignorant is destructive, arrogant and a clear indication of a lack or moral or intellectual seriousness. Grow the f*ck up.

    I've contributed money to stem cell research, have YOU?? The people who rip on "religious" people being backward and ignorant - how much have YOU contributed to this issue? Yeah, people who go to religious services regularly are really the problem with this country today. Gosh, most of them are perfectly nice, forgiving, stable, loving and raise children with strong values. What a-holes. They are killing our country! Put that sh*t on toast and stio your ignorant chirping.[/QUOTE]


    If you have a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research (b/c you are killing an embryo as you say) then why are you ok with Private funding for this program? If its morally wrong, then you should be against all funding, right? And what about the thousands of embryos wasted in IVF clinics? Should they also be outlawed?

    You are right about one thing though, you do know less than 1% about this topic. So take your own advise and stop lecturing others who wish to discuss this issue. No one here was discussing the science, we were discussing the morality of the issue and the hypocrisy behind those who preach

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Uh, people ARE outraged at in vitro processes.

    Kenny - do you support experimenting on live humans? If not, why not?

    You know negatives cannot be proven. You know no one can say definitively that there is no future in X. You know this. Your argument is a red herring.

    Why is embrynoic stem cell research better than adult and if it is, why has adult stem cell research produced more clinical success to date?[/QUOTE]

    People are outraged at IVF clinics? Your joking right? I mean you cant be serious trying to equate the debate rising from each of these issues? Really, i must have missed it. Yes I know its a hot story everyday. I see those people protesting outside IVF clinics everyday. Its a hottly debated topic on the news, i must have just missed it

    Of course I dont support experimenting on live humans. I also dont consider embryos living humans. Do you?

    Tell me if you saw a fire in an IVF clinic and you had the ability to save only one of the following: a crying 8 month old or a have dozen cryopreserved human embryonic cells which would you save? If you have to think about this for more than a split second, you are mentally disturbed.
    There is a big difference.

    Asfar as my argument being a red herring, it is not. I am involved in cancer research. The federal govt funds my projects. Most of my work does not result in some great discovery. Most cancer researchers will not find major breakthroughs. Should they just quit because they are unlikely to make a major discovery? Should these projects be abandoned? Should funding just stop? If so, then there is no chance we will ever make a major breakthrough
    Last edited by kennyo7; 10-26-2006 at 11:19 AM.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]If you have a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research (b/c you are killing an embryo as you say) then why are you ok with Private funding for this program? If its morally wrong, then you should be against all funding, right? And what about the thousands of embryos wasted in IVF clinics? Should they also be outlawed?

    You are right about one thing though, you do know less than 1% about this topic. So take your own advise and stop lecturing others who wish to discuss this issue. No one here was discussing the science, we were discussing the morality of the issue and the hypocrisy behind those who preach[/QUOTE]

    When did I say I have a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research?

    Personally, I agree that embryos that would otherwise be discarded (like those in IVF clinics) should be used for research and have no problem with private funding for that. I do have a moral objection to creating embryos for the express purpose of killing them, however.

    You are fine to call conservatives hyocrites, but I can't respond in kind? Typical.

    The cadaver analogy is weak and you know it.

    Obviously, you avoided by discussion of eugenics, human experiments and the fact that all things that may have benefits are not morally acceptable. Some "discussion" or morality - you avoided the entire topic.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am reprinting something I posted on one of the Michael Fox threads as I think it applies to this discusion.
    [URL]http://www.jetsinsider.net/forums/showthread.php?t=128481[/URL]
    [QUOTE]Do adult stem cells have the same capability as embryonic stem cells?

    For many years, scientists have conducted studies to determine whether the stem cells in adult tissue have the same developmental capability as embryonic stem cells. The general consensus is that adult stem cells seem to be less versatile. Scientists think that embryonic stem cells have a much greater utility and potential than the adult stem cells, because embryonic stem cells may develop into virtually every type of cell in the human body. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, may only be able to develop into a limited number of cell types. Embryonic stem cells also continue to divide indefinitely when placed in culture, while this may not be the case for adult stem cells and this would reduce their capacity to form new cell types. Both adult and embryonic stem cell research should continue simultaneously as they are both critical to our understanding of the etiology, progression and treatment of disease. [/QUOTE]
    [URL]http://www.stemcellresearchfoundati...About/FAQ.htm#4 [/URL]

    Also two additional points I would like to make. These embryos that are currently being used are not ones that were fertilized just for the sake of the research. Therefore it is not playing with life. As a matter of fact they were fertilized with the hope of implantation to spawn a life. This research saves them from the garbage pail. How can anyone think that's wrong?

    Yes private research is legal but we all know how this works in our country. Major scientific initiatives are funded by our govt. and if the govt can't contribute we have a brain drain of the best scientists overseas. This is an important factor.
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 10-26-2006 at 11:29 AM.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    delete

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]People are outraged at IVF clinics? Your joking right? I mean you cant be serious trying to equate the debate rising from each of these issues? Really, i must have missed it. Yes I know its a hot story everyday. I see those people protesting outside IVF clinics everyday. Its a hottly debated topic on the news, i must have just missed it

    Of course I dont support experimenting on live humans. I also dont consider embryos living humans. Do you?

    Tell me if you saw a fire in an IVF clinic and you had the ability to save only one of the following: a crying 8 month old or a have dozen cryopreserved human embryonic cells which would you save? If you have to think about this for more than a split second, you are mentally disturbed.
    There is a big difference.

    Asfar as my argument being a red herring, it is not. I am involved in cancer research. The federal govt funds my projects. Most of my work does not result in some great discovery. Most cancer researchers will not find major breakthroughs. Should they just quit because they are unlikely to make a major discovery? Should these projects be abandoned? Should funding just stop? If so, then there is no chance we will ever make a major breakthrough[/QUOTE]

    Yes, your argument is a red herring and you know it. It's absurd and childish.

    What species are embryos, if not human? My son George was some other species before becoming a human?? Amazing!

    Any story not covered in the news doesn't exist? Go ask people who oppose abortion what they think of in vitro some day, boss.

    As to your last paragrapgh - by that logic, please give an example of research that the federal government shouldn't fund. I mean, who knows what works and what doesn't -why not fund every single research project ever conceived?

    Debating you used to be fun - now it just gets old. Do you deviate AT ALL from the liberal playbook? I deviate - I support embryonic stem cell research on discarded IVF clinic embryos for the very pragmatic reasons Plumber mentioned. But you are a by the book liberal on literally every single issue you have ever posted about. It gets old because I can write your reponses for you. It's Paint By Numbers stuff....

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]I am reprinting something I posted on one of the Michael Fox threads as I think it applies to this discusion.
    [URL]http://www.jetsinsider.net/forums/showthread.php?t=128481[/URL]

    [URL]http://www.stemcellresearchfoundati...About/FAQ.htm#4 [/URL]

    Also two additional points I would like to make. These embryos that are currently being used are not one that were fertilized just for the sake of the research. Therefore it is not playing with life. As a matter of fact there were fertilized with the hope of implantation to spawn a life. This research saves them from the garbage pail. How can anyone think that's wrong?

    [B]Yes private research is legal but we all know how this works in our country[/B]. Major scientific initiatives are funded by our govt. and if the govt can't contribute we have a brain drain of the best scientists overseas. This is an important factor.[/QUOTE]


    This is a key point here QJF.

    As aphysician I know all to much the drawbacks of Private Funding for rsearch. While Private Corporations make tremendous contribution to the scientific world, they also waste a tremendous amount.

    Case in point, look at the number of companies that have spent millions making ACE Inhibitors (a class of drugs for hypertension) . These drugs are big money makers for pharmaceutical companies because of the prevelance of HTN in the population. And since people often live 20+ years with hypertension and once your on it your usually on it for life, these drugs are very profitable. Yet there is no need for 10 different ACE Inhibitors. They all essentially work the same with similar efficacy and side effect profiles. Yet millions are spent by the private sector to make these drugs, when that kind of money could have been spent to make something else that we do need, like say new antibiotics for resistant strains of bacteria. Of course getting a resistant bug is not as common as having hypertension and antibiotics are used for 1-2 weeks, not a lifetime, so they do not make enough money for the drug company.

    Thats the drawback of private funded research. In the early stages of bench research, such as in embryonic stem cell research, federal funding is required.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]

    The cadaver analogy is also laughable.[/QUOTE]

    I thought that it was a good comparison. People back then thought it was a Hellish thing to do because they didn't understand it but now it's a normal thing.

    And how does working on a live person compare to working on embryos that are going to end up in the trash?

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    What happens when science advances to the point where an egg can not only be fertilized outside the womb but brought to term and life without a donor women needed to bring it to term? I don't know that it could or couldn't happen, but as science radically reduces the time needed for a human host to bring a fetus to term, it seems to me the moral argument against using these embroy's will get stronger rather than weaker. By that time the gene will probably be out of the bottle and than we will have some debate.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Yes, your argument is a red herring and you know it. It's absurd and childish.

    What species are embryos, if not human? My son George was some other species before becoming a human?? Amazing!

    Any story not covered in the news doesn't exist? Go ask people who oppose abortion what they think of in vitro some day, boss.

    As to your last paragrapgh - by that logic, please give an example of research that the federal government shouldn't fund. I mean, who knows what works and what doesn't -why not fund every single research project ever conceived?

    Debating you used to be fun - now it just gets old. Do you deviate AT ALL from the liberal playbook? I deviate - I support embryonic stem cell research on discarded IVF clinic embryos for the very pragmatic reasons Plumber mentioned. But you are a by the book liberal on literally every single issue you have ever posted about. It gets old because I can write your reponses for you. It's Paint By Numbers stuff....[/QUOTE]

    Your response is whats childish. As is you constant insults. Grow up already!

    Again, i do not say that embryos are not of the human species. I am simply making a qualitative difference . You cant seriously be saying a human embryo is qualitatively the same as a full born human. That is whats laughable, buddy! Gimme a break already.

    Again you avoid the fire analogy? Who do you save? They are both human as you say, so i take it leaving the crying baby in the fire to burn or die and saving the cryopreserved embryos instead is an acceptable option to you ? Right?

    What kind of research should be funded? Do yo even have an inkling as to how the process is done? I assume youve never submitted a proposal to the NIH for funding. Well let me tell you getting funding from the NIH is very hard. After working for months or year coming up with some prelim data, you hjave to submit a proposal often several hundred pages long to a pannel of scientists who review it and decide whether you should be funded and how much you should get. The NIH typically reject alot more proposals than it gets. So no, not every project should be funded. But that decision should be left to the experts not politicians.
    Last edited by kennyo7; 10-26-2006 at 11:47 AM.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,872
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Exactly Mick. I think human cloning fears play heavily into it. People watch and believe too much Sc-Fi channel sh*t. [B] Human cloning isn't like the army of Boba Fetts from Star Trek. Even if you cloned an exact replica of yourself it would not end up exactly the same as you. [/B]Every person is the sum of their experiences. Identical twins are clones of each other, but never end up the same because each one has different experiences in life.

    Tiki and Rhonde...[/QUOTE]


    Yikes....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us