Let's talk about

[southerntierguy]

that is another discussion but also a valid one---

I do agree I have been rambling... back to the MAIN point of the thread.

 

[fire_breeze]

A riveting discussion, and if you don't mind, I'll just offer my inflated two cents, as a sort of side bar.

Stem cell research almost always automatically implies Embryonic stem cell research, as I believe Ryan has mentioned.

I'm not against the research per se, as it can advance our medical knowledge. What I am hesitant about is using, almost solely, embryos. And that gives me pause, because we truly do not understand the nature of embryos; most would claim that they are not persons because they are unable to survive on its own outside of the womb. But that begs the question of how do we define a person? One with a consciousness? A heartbeat (which develops in 6th week, by the way)? Personality? How do we know that a embryo doesn't have a consciousness but is unable to communicate it? It's that very definition of a person, or the potential of personhood that gives me pause. As it was pointed out, amniotic fluids contain stem cells; so does umbilical cords - most which go into the garbage. Why not use those and avoid most of the ethical discomfort that many - researchers included - express?

On the flip side, I know that the stem cell research can expand the medical field exponentially and improve the quality of lives for countless people. What terrifies me is the use of the research for profit and which would cross the boundaries of most ethical position. How can we monitor that? How do we know that some company won't be built on gene rejuvenation for profit or for designer babies?

Bottom line, the research itself is neutral: the use of the research and perhaps even the instruments used is what is up for debate.

 

[southerntierguy]

A riveting discussion, and if you don't mind, I'll just offer my inflated two cents, as a sort of side bar.

Stem cell research almost always automatically implies Embryonic stem cell research, as I believe Ryan has mentioned.

I'm not against the research per se, as it can advance our medical knowledge. What I am hesitant about is using, almost solely, embryos. And that gives me pause, because we truly do not understand the nature of embryos; most would claim that they are not persons because they are unable to survive on its own outside of the womb. But that begs the question of how do we define a person? One with a consciousness? A heartbeat (which develops in 6th week, by the way)? Personality? How do we know that a embryo doesn't have a consciousness but is unable to communicate it? It's that very definition of a person, or the potential of personhood that gives me pause. As it was pointed out, amniotic fluids contain stem cells; so does umbilical cords - most which go into the garbage. Why not use those and avoid most of the ethical discomfort that many - researchers included - express?

On the flip side, I know that the stem cell research can expand the medical field exponentially and improve the quality of lives for countless people. What terrifies me is the use of the research for profit and which would cross the boundaries of most ethical position. How can we monitor that? How do we know that some company won't be built on gene rejuvenation for profit or for designer babies?

Bottom line, the research itself is neutral: the use of the research and perhaps even the instruments used is what is up for debate.

I think, rather than say "How do we know <they> won't ..." we can almost surely say "If it is legal and profitable, someone will ..."

In fact, I think we can probably say "If it is profitable, someone will ..." and skip the legal aspects, but that's just my opinion, and hopefully it wouldn't flourish (although a black market in medical cures probably would).

 

[fire_breeze]

I think, rather than say "How do we know <they> won't ..." we can almost surely say "If it is legal and profitable, someone will ..."

In fact, I think we can probably say "If it is profitable, someone will ..." and skip the legal aspects, but that's just my opinion, and hopefully it wouldn't flourish (although a black market in medical cures probably would).

And even if it wouldn't be legal, if the profit potential is high, then the corporations would lobby for a change in status.

 

[daus42]

Robert Oppenheimer one of the scientist that developed the atomic bomb quoted from Sanskrit after seeing the first explosion- "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

There is a price for knowledge and the dilemma of science and ethics will only increase into the future.

 

[RyanBlack]

Robert Oppenheimer one of the scientist that developed the atomic bomb quoted from Sanskrit after seeing the first explosion- "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

There is a price for knowledge and the dilemma of science and ethics will only increase into the future.

I am going to have to agree with FB---Research is neutral---science should be--

it is another unfortunate reality that without funding---mainly for profit funding--research mainly comes to a screetching halt especially in the medical field. The cost of research has become an ever increasing concern for the legal liabilities involved.

Count the number of Advertisements by Attorneys searching for medical liabilities especially those against large pharmaceutical corporations with deep profit pockets. Compare that with the number of drugs being advertised--dont forget to include all those comercials for Cialis, Levitra, Viagra etc. . . .

The cost of research is not spent on science--it is spent on lawyers, either justifying or defending their work. Peer review has become a joke among academics, and a matter of simply buying the right journal articles for corporate research---Eventually it ends up in courts where judges are often political appointments instead of great thinkers and adjudicators.

Few informed opinions are presented--and those are often vilified by mobs of ignorant led by ideological thugs, both Liberal and Conservative. Our only hope of developing coherent and thoughtful policy is to delve into the debate without personal agendas---which is not to say without personal opinions or cultural influences. Rather to recognize our bias and deal with it openly.

In the long run, the choice will become moot as the decision will be made by the economic powers that be as opposed to the intellectual ones---but if we are lucky--a few voices might be heard, a few voices might moderate and a few voices might postpone the inevitable construction of a social structure which cements further the division between what value a person of economic means has over a person without them.

 

[smotherman]

Just adding my two cents.

They offer much hope for medical advancement because of their ability to grow into almost any kind of cell. For instance, neural cells in the brain and spinal cord that have been damaged can be replaced by stem cells. In the treatment of cancer, cells destroyed by radiation or chemotherapy can be replaced with new healthy stem cells that adapt to the affected area, whether it be part of the brain, heart, liver, lungs, or wherever. Dead cells of almost any kind, no matter the type of injury or disease, can be replaced with new healthy cells.

My mother passed away from cancer, God knows they need medical advancement in 2010. I'm out of here!

 

[funluvinaj]

When Melody first told me she started this thread I was at work and unable to read the thoughts and information posted.

I told her, without having read the posts, that I firmly supported any and all stem cell research. Watching my dad die a slow and horrid death from Parkinson's disease I didn't think anything would sway me.

First off, let me say that I am extremely impressed at the thoughtful, respectful, intelligent dialogue that took place through these 3 pages.

Second, my opinion about embryonic stem cells is that if they are there and will be destroyed why not use them for good. Having read (and I admit it's going to take me a few more times through before I feel comfortable with the material, not sure I'll understand it even then) through things, I am pausing to think about that. I think it was perhaps a bit naive not to think that at some point embryos would be grown for research.

Initially I think I will have to agree with Ryan & Mike that we use viable stem cells from alternate sources, even at the higher financial cost.

Firebreeze (and the subsequent conversation) scared the crap out of me with the point that she raised... how will this research be used and that it will become a for-profit industry.

Thanks Melody for starting this... I hope that when this topic starts to slow you or someone else comes up with another "let's talk about" topic. I may not always feel I can offer an intelligent response but I certainly appreciate others' insight and knowledge.

 

[RyanBlack]

When Melody first told me she started this thread I was at work and unable to read the thoughts and information posted.

I told her, without having read the posts, that I firmly supported any and all stem cell research. Watching my dad die a slow and horrid death from Parkinson's disease I didn't think anything would sway me.

First off, let me say that I am extremely impressed at the thoughtful, respectful, intelligent dialogue that took place through these 3 pages.

Second, my opinion about embryonic stem cells is that if they are there and will be destroyed why not use them for good. Having read (and I admit it's going to take me a few more times through before I feel comfortable with the material, not sure I'll understand it even then) through things, I am pausing to think about that. I think it was perhaps a bit naive not to think that at some point embryos would be grown for research.

Initially I think I will have to agree with Ryan & Mike that we use viable stem cells from alternate sources, even at the higher financial cost.

Firebreeze (and the subsequent conversation) scared the crap out of me with the point that she raised... how will this research be used and that it will become a for-profit industry.

Thanks Melody for starting this... I hope that when this topic starts to slow you or someone else comes up with another "let's talk about" topic. I may not always feel I can offer an intelligent response but I certainly appreciate others' insight and knowledge.

I think that you expressed yoru views quite intelligently ma'am ---especially the part where you agreed with me

 

[call_me_Melody]

I think that you expressed yoru views quite intelligently ma'am ---especially the part where you agreed with me

*snort*

What I do want to say to everyone is thank you. For sharing your thoughts, your opinions, your viewpoints and your knowledge with me.

And....
for doing it so intelligently, so thoughtfully and so respectfully.

You rock.

And many of your comments and statements made me think long and hard about my own viewpoints and opinions, which was kind of what I was hoping for as I continue my research.

Thank you.
*hugs*