Stem Cell Research

[Guest guest]

http://www.lifenews.com/bio999.html - this was forwarded to me and I found the link.

Researchers: Adult Stem Cells Can Become Other Kinds of Cells by ErteltLifeNews.com EditorMay 30, 2005

Sydney, Australia (LifeNews.com) -- Scientists who favor embryonic stem cells say they hold the promise of being able to change into any kind of stem cell, which would allow them to cure virtually any disease. However, researchers in Australia have found adult stem cells can do the same thing. Scientists at Australia's Griffith University have ended a four year study on olfactory stem cells and found that they can be turned into heart cells, brain cells, nerve cells and almost any other kind of cell in the human body.

In addition, they can be developed without the kind of problems embryonic stem cells have had when injected into humans -- including being rejected or causing tumors to develop.

"Our experiments have shown adult stem cells isolated from the olfactory mucosa have the ability to develop into many different cell types if they are given the right chemical or cellular environment," research team leader Alan Mackay-Sim told The Australian newspaper.

Mackay-Sim said his team grew nerve cells, glial cells, liver cells, heart cells, muscle cells from the cells harvested from the human nose.

He said the medical community in his country is excited about the results.

Brisbane neurologist Silburn, a member of Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council, pointed to the taking of adult stem cells from patients with Parkinson's and turning them into neurones.

"We can now learn about the condition in ways we never could before," Silburn told the Australian.

The findings of the Griffith University team, which conducted their study with only $200,000 in funds, add a major argument to those who oppose taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.

[Guest guest]

What I would want from this is the ability to regrow spinal cords damaged by

accidents or birth defects.

Not a Perfect baby, but that's a parent's right too.

This is a Healthcare discussion. Let's not allow the righties claim this is

religion.

I'm a Mormon and pretty conservative

stem cell research

> For what little I do know know about stem cell research, I

> understand

> if successful we would be able to cure birth defects, including

> dwarfism. I think that would be wonderful.

> I am wondering though is that what we would all want to happen?

> Personally I would love it. If I had my choice I definately would

> be

> taller and proportionate.

>

> Thanks,

>

> jim

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

:

" Not a Perfect baby, but that's a parent's right too. "

I'm curious about how you ground this claim? Why is it a parent's

right to determine the traits of their child?

Just because we are at the brink of having the scientific ABILITY to

manipulate the physical traits of our offspring, how does this imply

a RIGHT to do this?

Maybe you said this in a rush, but if it was a thoughtful,

intentional statement, I am really curious about the logic you used

to get there.

Joe

>

> What I would want from this is the ability to regrow spinal cords

damaged by accidents or birth defects.

>

> Not a Perfect baby, but that's a parent's right too.

>

> This is a Healthcare discussion. Let's not allow the righties claim

this is religion.

>

> I'm a Mormon and pretty conservative

>

> stem cell research

>

> > For what little I do know know about stem cell research, I

> > understand

> > if successful we would be able to cure birth defects, including

> > dwarfism. I think that would be wonderful.

> > I am wondering though is that what we would all want to happen?

> > Personally I would love it. If I had my choice I definately would

> > be

> > taller and proportionate.

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > jim

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Obviously I'm not Soares, and don't play him on TV.

But.

In a sense haven't we been manipulating this from day one? Choosing

the tallest, strongest, handsome/beautiful, (hopefully) intelligent to

mate with? And with the evolution of sperm banks even more. Even in

cultures where parents choose your mate they manipulate the situation

so the candidate is the best they can procure. Maybe not based on the

same criteria.

Who decides what is a right? And then who's opinion is right about

choices?

I think gene manipulation is (was) inevitable in our evolutionary

process/progress once we discovered fire. Whether we like it or not,

that is where we are going or are at. Some will have designer

children, if they aren't having them now. While before I would have

had to choose based on what I saw in a man or saw him capable of, I

can now (or will soon) be able to manipulate traits out of a petrie

dish (or into a petrie dish) and *poof* into the child I want (if I

wanted rug-rats).

Don't we have the right to choose when scientific/medical options are

available? Some have been using abortion as a method for decades (or

maybe longer). Only recently has the medical profession been able to

identify physical traits that are not preferred and been offering

alternatives to parents to choose from. Am I wrong in thinking that

those parents have rights to terminate those pregnancies? I mean law,

not ethics. The ethics of it aren't even worth debating (well maybe

not worth arguing about, debathing is always entertaining), if it's

the law, it's their right.

Question: In American (and only in some circumstances I suppose) I

have the right to bear arms, but not to kill you. In some minds (and

teachings) if I were to allow for " an eye for an eye " I'd have the

right to both?

As a woman with SED I think I had (perhaps it's still 'have') the

right to choose not to have a child because of the chances that it

would also be born with SED. And aside from marriage or not, which is

inconsequention after a point, that was my main reason for not

considering a pregnancy. At 50 I may not be enamoured with small

children, but even at 20 or 30 I knew I'd never want to take the risk

of passing this on.

And couples who are identified as carrying a fetus with double

dominance are offered the option to abort. Correct? Isn't that a

right when abortion is legal?

Although I've adjusted or come to terms with my dwarfism I also know

that I would prefer not to pass it onto a child (I've contemplated the

possibility of a rape and my options, but have never come to a

conclusion as to my path if those were the circumstance. Although I'd

fight for the right of a woman to choose, I don't know if my choice is

as clear.) For the record, I pretty much have a live and let live

attitude about the issue. Within the community I've heard from those

on both sides and this is another issue we'll not agree on just

because we're dwarfs. People have the right to have their opinions on

life as a dwarf and choose to have children or not.

I think if we look at this from the point of view of those outside of

the community (and some of us inside of) you can see where parents

would prefer to manipulate life so as to prevent some of the

physically painful & incapacitating issues associated with any type of

dwarfism (and many other physical issues labeled under 'disabilities'

<I can see why we have a problem with that label>). Those who aren't

shallow can look past the physical appearances and the issues

associated with living in a world made for much taller individuals.

But, the pain, surgeries and progressive deterioration of the body at

a young age (especially these days when we live longer and 50 is the

new 40, if not 35) are traits that I can see worth eradicating (sp?).

Unfortunately for us as a 'community' which gathers around a physical

identification, this also means 'we' will eventually cease to exist

(if checked for), and become even rarer if not looked for or as long

as someone with the gene is able to continue the line.

I can't see how the problems could be disassociated by themselves.

Pituatary (sp) dwarfs are rare these days, didn't the parents have the

right to correct that? Would we have prefered that wasn't a choice?

ELL is a choice also, who has the right to deny parents that option?

Who becomes the hall monitor?

It's a brand new world, but not far from all of the sci-fi I loved

reading in my youth.

PS. Look at it this way, LPA conventions of the far-future can be held

in smaller hotels, maybe NYC has a shot then.

> >

> > What I would want from this is the ability to regrow spinal cords

> damaged by accidents or birth defects.

> >

> > Not a Perfect baby, but that's a parent's right too.

> >

> > This is a Healthcare discussion. Let's not allow the righties claim

> this is religion.

> >

> > I'm a Mormon and pretty conservative

> >

> > stem cell research

> >

> > > For what little I do know know about stem cell research, I

> > > understand

> > > if successful we would be able to cure birth defects, including

> > > dwarfism. I think that would be wonderful.

> > > I am wondering though is that what we would all want to happen?

> > > Personally I would love it. If I had my choice I definately

would be taller and proportionate.

> > >

> > > Thanks, > > > jim

[Guest guest]

,

Very Very interesting post.

> In a sense haven't we been manipulating this from day one? Choosing

> the tallest, strongest, handsome/beautiful, (hopefully) intelligent

to

> mate with? And with the evolution of sperm banks even more. Even in

> cultures where parents choose your mate they manipulate the

situation

> so the candidate is the best they can procure. Maybe not based on

the

> same criteria.

I think this is a valid point, but only a partial truth. Surely,

some of what makes a person " attractive " to another person has to do

with evolutionary pyschology/biology of reproduction. I like women

with wide hips and full breasts because they make for good child

bearers (this is not a calculated conscious choice, but rather the

way men are hard wired by evolution). This doesn't mean that all

attraction is reducible to traits that one wants to pass to their

offspring or that will be useful in having offspring. If that were

true, then gay people wouldn't have attraction in that they are not

looking for a mate that they expect to share their genetic material

with. Alot of attraction has to do with finding someone who you want

to share your life with, regardless of childrearing. I don't need to

lecture you about this.

However, even if all atraction was reducible to finding a mate to

have children with, i am not convinced that this is the same thing as

intentionally manipulating the traits of a human being. There are 2

major moral questions that arrise from genetic engineering that don't

exist for the traditional " genetic manipulation " of the dating

process.

1. The comidification of human beings.

2. The stamping out of physical and cognitive diversity within the

human species.

Let's delve a bit deeper here.

Commodification is defined by the American Heritage dictinary as " To

turn into or treat as a commodity; make commercial. " Genetically

engineering customizable kids definitely does this to humnan life. I

think, if anything should be treated with the " dignity " of not being

seen as a good to be bought or sold, it is a human being. One reason

to be against designer babies is that it reduces the human being to a

personalized, customizable object. Having kids shouldn't be like

ordering off of Burger King's Extra Value Menu. I think it is

morally outrgeous to have kids " your way right away. " Parents

already put absurd pressures on their kids to be " perfect. " We can

be sure that these pressures would be increased many times over if

they were able to manipulate the child's traits during his or her

conception. " What do you mean you didn't make the cut for the

varsity soccer team? I dropped $10,000 on genetic endurance enhancers

when you were but a zygote. "

Let us take this a step even further. If this is a parent's " right, "

then do we pay for it with public funds? Do we use tax money to

subsidize the process for low income families who want to enhance

their kids? Do we add this to the list of medicaid treatments?

If not, think of how quickly class disparities would get out of

control. If the wealthy could not only give their children better

education, nutrition, opportunity, but actually genetically

manipulate their kids to be smarter, stronger, and more socially

capable, class warfare would quickly be at our doorstep. Genetic

engineering could be the end of the american dream. Social Darwinism

could be a reality and a caste system vis a vis Brave New World could

be an unintended consequence. I would not want to be part of the

lower unengineered class that had to compete with the elite who were

even at a BIOLOGICAL advantage. This all comes with the

commidification issue.

Now let's think a bit about diversity. Right now, the disability

rights movement sees physical and cognitive difference as a problem

in as far as society does a poor job of constructing its institutions

and facilities to be inclusive of those who are different.

Differences become disabling because society is unreceptive to them.

A wheelchair using LP doesn't have a hard time at a job interview

because she is not qualified for the job (well, maybe sometimes), but

because the interviewer is uncomfortable with her physicality and

because the building was designed by an architect who was equally

uncomfortable with it (either consciously or unconsciously).

In my mind, the answer to the " pain of disability " isn't to radically

change the human being, but radically change the society. We need

stronger laws about access to public services and opportunities for

ppl with differences. We need a culture shift in attitudes about

the " place " occupied in society by people with these differences.

Entertaining the idea that is acceptable to engineer these

differences out of the human species only further entrenches the

attitudes that have kept ppl with disabilities unemployed and living

in nursing homes.

Also, at what point does this cease to really be a free choice? At

what point are you considered a " bad " or even " abusive " parent for

having a child with dwarfism or dyslexia? Social pressures exist

that take away this freedom of choice because of our society's

unbridled ignorance and fear of difference.

We need not limit this idea to people with physical differences or

disabilities. There are all kinds of ideas about what makes for

a " good " human being. There are all kinds of attitudes in society

that make life harder for people that have certain differences that

genetic manipulation has the potential to elimiate. For example,

should a racial minority engineer out the physical traits that put

their kids in that category of people to an outside observer? This

would give them a life that is easier without that discrimination.

Should a parent who finds that their zygote has the gay gene (if its

discovered) cut that out " for the child's own good? " Or should we

concentrate our resources and energy on education and programs and

laws that end racism and homophobia?

These are the reasons why i think an ability to genetically enhance

our kids does not imply a right to do so. In fact, I think these are

good reasons why such technology should not be pursued with public

funds and maybe even banned all together. As far as the technology

being saught after in other countries, China and North Korea do a lot

i disagree with and we can add this to the list...

and now i step down off that particular soap box...

[Guest guest]

Done, the Yes are at least a bit ahead.. Sheena ron bowman <bowm04@...> wrote: If you support stem cell research, my local Republican congressman, who opposes it, has for some reason put a poll on his web site and the pro's are stomping the anti's. Maybe you'd like to chime in. The left side of the web page has the poll question. http://jeffmiller.house.gov/ ron Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

Sponsored Link Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro-*Terms

[Guest guest]

Dear Carl,

You have a valid point and just the other day, I was talking to Jimmy and

wondered what all the people in Peta do if they have to take a medicine that was

developed in a lab that used mice or other animals for research, would they

refuse it? I also agree with him, that if they are going to " throw away " or

discard fertilized eggs, why not use it for research instead. When I worked in

a hospital, they threw everything away, nothing was saved, but that was 60 years

ago, but I imagine it is still being done. I read an article that perhaps some

of the cord blood was tainted with bacteria that could be passed on from the

donor. Not all labatories follow protocol. There was one closed by the FDA

last year because they were not sanitary in the way they preserved the cord

blood. That required doing a lot more research, and at the time I was occupied

with the stem cell articles and that that was more interesting for discussion.

FYI,

Lottie Duthu