No need to murder babies, and the body is less likely to reject them.
As conservative scientists had predicted a decade ago, adult stem cells can be reversed into ones identical or nearly so to embryonic stem cells.
Printable View
No need to murder babies, and the body is less likely to reject them.
As conservative scientists had predicted a decade ago, adult stem cells can be reversed into ones identical or nearly so to embryonic stem cells.
I don't think it was just conservative scientists that had predicted the use of adult stem cells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Nonetheless, liberals insisted on continuing mass-murder instead of waiting a few years till the same therapy could be done without killing anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I understand the sentiment, but I think the idea was that the embrionic stem cells had zero chance of developing further anyway, so it was beneficial to have them make a contribution towards curing debilitating diseases. Also, while it was predicted, there was no guarentee it could work. The medical industry wasn't going to stand still and wait for the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Either way, this is all-around good news. Those guys definitely deserve their Nobel prize.
"lives"
My oh my, aren't we feeling trolly tonight....
Embryonic stem cells are in no way a person.
that would just mean that potentially life saving research would be a "few years" delayed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
and normally people that need it have plenty of time to spare...as we all know.
also..."lives"....*laugh snort*
Indeedily-doo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
While I always applaud scientific progress, this discovery gets nothing more than the standard applause from me. And from the looks of it, I would've prefered the resources be spent on research relsted to the perfectly good pool of stem cells we already have.
Unless, of course, this method is cheaper. If so, scrap the babies!
Thought Experiment
(before coffee)
An embryo has the potential right stuff to become a human as its stem cells can change into all the components (organs) of a human. Essentially it's the building plans and factory that can create a life form be it chicken, shark or human. The embryos are harvested from the cells of a pair of adults. For a human male that may involve a small room, porn and a small cup to contain the contents. Mix the right species sperm and eggs together and you have a fertilised egg, then an embryo.
iPS are cells harvested from an adult. These cells are treated to become pluripotent stem cells that are the plans and factory to form a life form.
iPS = embryo stem cells. The only difference is the first they scrap off some skin cells the second requires Mrs Palmer. Two different journeys to the same destination does not a different destination create.
Have you ever masturbated, Vuk, you mass murderer you?
They are spares from IVF, so absolutly nothing would and will change on that point. It's still good research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Why do you get spares from IVF? That's because they fertilize a lot of eggs to find a few promising ones. Doing it one and one would be wasteful in time and reosurces and would give a lot more miscarriages from IVF, with the end result that fewer children will be born.
Less killling of embryos= less born children. That's a fact and a nice conundrum for you.
Well you are missing the obvious: in one instance the baby arrives before the stem cells (which are developed post-birth in this instance), in the other instance the baby never arrives at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
That said the idea that this research saves a lot of lives as opposed to the practice of using spare IVF fetuses is of course bunk. After all, otherwise the spares would've been destroyed as well, since that is how IVF works. There is no liberal mass murdering of unborn childs going on, there is only ignorance of (human) biology.
I think many can make an argument that this is indeed true, but is a different topic. A topic that seems unrelated to the Nobel-winning research. That argument has been done to death, so to speak, so I don't bring it up here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Do you mean that iPS are, for all intents and purposes, embryonic cells - and that it actually has the same potential to become a human being as any naturally created embryo?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
With a bit more work :) they could become toripotent until then cloning would require at least the casing of a donor egg for the pluripotent contents.
Stem cells from blood cords have even less ability to differentiate and only can become (at present) blood cells.
On IVF, it also costs the "pro-life" position to argue that (as I explained above). And since this is only about IVF...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir