Stem Cells - is this true?
Posted on: December 4, 2007 - 2:27am
Offline
Stem Cells - is this true?
I'm not a scientist, so I was hoping someone with a little more background than myself could tell me what the real story is here. Basically the article says embronic stem cells are not needed because skin cells can be reprogrammed...
I was going to paste it in but it said at the bottom that it couldn't be distributed in any way.
Ethical, scientific breakthroughs seen in new stem-cell studies
By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
source: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0706656.htm
- Login to post comments
They have claimed to be able to bypass the need for fetal tissue, I can`t say how valid it is.
I'm not a scientist either, but everything I've heard from real scientists is that there are some promising avenues of research with non-embryonic stem cells, but that there will probably not be anything as versatile. In other words, I think other cells may have limited use, but embryonic cells are much better at present, and for the foreseeable future..
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The thing that bothers me with this whole issue is that there is an active agenda to try and make blastocystic (ie embryonic--I'll explain) stem cell resesarch seem unimportant. There have been many other sources of stem cells discovered (bone marrow, fat cells, umbilical cord blood) but all of the media attention is a campaign to detract from the validity of ESC research.
(I use "blastocystic" as opposed to "embryonic" because technically the embryonic phase begins when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Undifferentiated stem cells can only be extracted before implantation occurs. There is a window of 3-6 days or so after fertilization. i feel that the term "embryonic" is an emotional ploy used to conjure images of teeny tiny babies being murdered in scientific experimentation. There is no such emotional attachment to a blastocyst.)
Atheist Books
Remember, this only affects america iirc. other countries are going full guns with embryonic stem cells.
Morte alla tyrannus et dei
It is my understanding that embryonic stem cells have properties that make them unique compared to adult stem cells. Whether or not those properties create more potential for medical benefits I can't say. But I find it hard to believe that scientists want to study embryonic stem cells just to kill embryos when adult stem cells could serve the same purpose. Adult stem cells are much easier to obtain.
I think it is just their anti-abortion views which is absurd because embryos that are used for stem cell research do not come from abortions but from fertility clinics. As Kelly pointed out, there is a very small window, women don't get abortions that early. (Except maybe with the morning after pill but then the scientists don't get the stem cells do they?)
For the record, I am prolife because I believe people should only die when they do something to deserve it but the opposition to stem cells seems really extreme to me. Using their logic, they are murderers if they have used any form of birthcontrol, failed to attempt to get pregnant every time an egg is present etc.
I think most of the opposition to stem cell research is ignorance. People are convinced that stem cells come from a chopped up fetus after an abortion. If people understood where stem cells come from they would probably be far more supportive. Only the extreme fundys protest fertility clinics.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X