Stem Cell Research: For and Against?

[Uncle Sam]

I'm for. I bet Becca is too; she can be a sick freak like that.

I know in America it's illegal for stem cell research to be federally funded. I expect there's all other kinds of restrictions on it too, but I'll be damned if I'm looking them up. Recently, it's been in the UK news that stem cell research (in the UK, where we're apparently leading the way... high five and all that) is being underfunded to the point where some serious shit is going down.

This is due to investors and even scientists (yes, those funny, amoral creatures) having moral objections against this kind of research. It's because it uses embryos, and research is often done using human/animal hybrid embryos. I personally think people are worried one scientist is going to get carried away and we'll be overrun by a race of superhuman sheep-me.

But yeah, I have no moral objections to this whatsoever. It can mean cures or part-cures for the victims of Alzheimer's (sp?), Parkinson's, paralysis and a multitude of diseases, particularly genetic ones (like the ones mentioned above). It can also mean complete replacement for damaged tissue without the need for donors - this is getting real practical progress in France, where they recently grew a small part of a hollow organ, if I remember correctly.

If that means you have to use embryos, I could not give a shit.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

While I am for adult stem cell research, I am still on the fence regarding embryonic stem cell research.

People in favor of embryonic stem cell research persist in talking about how such research will lead to scientific breakthroughs and discoveries that are unimaginable. However, what little embryonic stem cell research has been done shows that such claims are, at best, vastly overstated. However, the one thing proponents of embryonic stem cell research do have in their favor is the existence of strict regulation, which limits what researchers can theoretically do.

In my opinion, I would like to see where embryonic stem cell research goes. However, if nothing comes to fruition after a set period of time, then I would be for abandoning it and reallocating its resources to adult stem cell research.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

I say why the hell not. So your going to let people suffer through large amounts of pain and death because you don't want embryo's(that really are not thinking, alive creatures to an extent)to be use? I think it's pathetic that we choose peoples personal/religious beliefs over something that could help/save peoples life. It's not like their taking a baby and killing it to save someone else.

I can see why some people may disagree with my opinion for whatever reason. It's fine if you don't want to be involved and and/or use stem cells, but if it's going to save someone elses life then it shouldn't involve you.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I am for non-embryonic stem cell research. I think there is sufficient evidence that stem cells are effective in the fight against deleterious disease. I am glad that there are alternatives to embryos in the fight to advance scientifically.

According to Daily News Central, stem cells exist in hair follicles well into adulthood. Science Daily confrims that stem cells can be mass produced from hair follicles.

I am not for destroying human life to get these cells, however, if abortions are going to be performed, then why is every one of the bi products of the procedure not used for this research. I do not like the idea of destroying, what in my personal definition, is a human life, to get the cells. Now that we know that they can be found and harnessed in other ways, we should go ahead and research. Furthermore, with legal abortions available, why are these embryos not used in research? I think that the anti-abortion folks would go a lot easier on the doctors knowing that the product of their procedure is saving more lives.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Becca is also a sick freak, . I'm completely for it, I see no harm when the end result is a possible CURE to illnesses which have taken over peoples lives, and could possibly stop them.

I'm pro-choice also, and if a woman having an abortion gives her permission for the embryo to be used in research, then there's another good thing coming out of abortion. Abnortions are going to happen anyway, this way some of those pro-life idiots will be appeased by them knowing the embryo is going to help save some life. Well, it probably won't appease them, because they're idiots. But you see my point.

 

[The Big Gunnzbowski]

I'm for stem cell research. I believe it can be used to cure diseases and in some cases, HAS been used to find a cure for serious diseases... But I assure you this... Even if a cure for Cancer or Aids IS found, we'll never know. Pharmaceutical companies gain most of their funding for "developing" treatments and cures for these diseases. Money is made in "developing treatments" not curing the diseases. I'm willing to stake my money that alot of diseases were "created" by companies. When did you really hear about AIDS before the early 80's? That's right... You didn't. Why? Hmm... alot of debates have gone on over the fact that AIDS was lab created by the government. Conspiracy theorists rejoice, because it's one of the hot topics that really has no true answer. But then again, a conspiracy "theory" is something that has no evidence to support it. It's only speculation. However, the minute you have a single shred of evidence, supporting said theory, it's no longer a theory...it becomes a "possibility". Do you really think that stem cell research is strictly restricted and monitored because of the "moral dilemmas" and bullshit like that? No... It's as such, because the possibility for finding a cure for a severe illness or chronic disease is only a real possibility, and that only proves that money surely is the root of all evil...

 

[Uncle Sam]

I'm for stem cell research. I believe it can be used to cure diseases and in some cases, HAS been used to find a cure for serious diseases... But I assure you this... Even if a cure for Cancer or Aids IS found, we'll never know.

Cancer and AIDS are two diseases than stem calls cannot cure, actually. At least to my knowledge. Whereas cancer might qualify as a genetic disease it is caused by the mutation of cells - adding new ones ain't gonna help that. AIDS is to do with weakening of the immune system; something which is to do with antibodies and such (far as I know) and not cells.

Pharmaceutical companies gain most of their funding for "developing" treatments and cures for these diseases. Money is made in "developing treatments" not curing the diseases.

I'm guessing they also spend their funding on the development. I mean, what sort of shitty pharmaceutical company goes into a meeting and says "Hey, we cured the common cold. Can we have money for funding?". The reply would inevitably be "erm, you cured the disease, what do you need funding for?".

So I'd expect that all pharmaceutical companies gain most of their funding for development, and then some for distribution.

You find a cure for cancer, and you can sell that fucker, fact of the matter is you are going to be incredibly minted. There's no advantage to hiding it away - curing cancer will never go out of style.

I'm willing to stake my money that alot of diseases were "created" by companies.

No, you're thinking about Resident Evil.

When did you really hear about AIDS before the early 80's? That's right... You didn't. Why?

Because new strains of diseases are introduced all the time - they're self-developing. Also, because of careless sailors.

Hmm... alot of debates have gone on over the fact that AIDS was lab created by the government.

I like to debate things which don't have evidence and just wild speculation backing them too.

Conspiracy theorists

I'm willing to bet a lot of them are paranoid schizophrenics.

But then again, a conspiracy "theory" is something that has no evidence to support it. It's only speculation.

Precisely.

However, the minute you have a single shred of evidence, supporting said theory, it's no longer a theory...it becomes a "possibility".

It's a possibility anyway. Anything is. And you'd think some evidence would come out in the, oh, two and half decades since AIDS was first recognised.

Do you really think that stem cell research is strictly restricted and monitored because of the "moral dilemmas" and bullshit like that?

Yes. Because there are vocal opponents who have real power to do things publicly speaking out on such moral dilemmas.

No... It's as such, because the possibility for finding a cure for a severe illness or chronic disease is only a real possibility, and that only proves that money surely is the root of all evil...

Erm, what?

 

[FromTheSouth]

Cancer and AIDS are two diseases than stem calls cannot cure, actually. At least to my knowledge. Whereas cancer might qualify as a genetic disease it is caused by the mutation of cells - adding new ones ain't gonna help that. AIDS is to do with weakening of the immune system; something which is to do with antibodies and such (far as I know) and not cells.

AIDS is a virus. Viruses are living organisms that can mutate and change. AIDS has over 80 identified strains, with 40 or more being discovered in southeast Asis in the last five years. Furthermore, it is a zoonoses. Which, like the flu, means it jumped from animals to humans. The virus actually lays dormant within animals, having little to no effect on the immune system, however, the human body is a far better host, which allows it to proliferate.

The current thought is that living organisms need to be used to fight AIDS. Certain bacteria, called archaea, are shown to effect DNA. The thought process involves the ingestion of archaea. Ideally, they will find the viral DNA of the AIDS strain, and effect it to a point where it stops working or dies within the system.

Stem cells can replicate other cells within the body, and the fear of using them to treat AIDS is that they might replicate the AIDS DNA instead of the human DNA and wreak havoc upon the human body.

I'm guessing they also spend their funding on the development. I mean, what sort of shitty pharmaceutical company goes into a meeting and says "Hey, we cured the common cold. Can we have money for funding?". The reply would inevitably be "erm, you cured the disease, what do you need funding for?". So I'd expect that all pharmaceutical companies gain most of their funding for development, and then some for distribution.

AIDS treatments cost $20,000 a year. I believe the drug company makes quite a bit of money from the drug cocktail. While they do receive an appreciable amnount of government funding for research, that goes to pay scientists and keep the lights on. And most research financing goes to universities, not Pfizer.

You find a cure for cancer, and you can sell that fucker, fact of the matter is you are going to be incredibly minted. There's no advantage to hiding it away - curing cancer will never go out of style.

Most of the research is not for a cure, but for a preventative measure. If I find a cure, it will take me seven years to get that drug out due to necessary FDA approval processes. The people who need a cure will be dead already. The preventative measure would be given in a shot to babies. Everyone born would have to buy that drug, as opposed to the 10% or so afflicted.



Stem cells seem to be a more effective measure for cancer, as cancer causes cell mutation. Injected stem cells can turn into platelets to fight the disease. They can also be used to regenerate organs that might need to be removed to eliminate tumors.

The reach of ailments that can be cured by stem cells grows every day. However, viral conditions need to be healed in another way.

 

[Shocky]

This is as easy as Stone Cold Steve Austin yelling Oh Hell Yeah. I don't know why you wouldn't look at this as a legit option for trying to help out multiple people.

How many eggs does a woman not use throughout her entire life. I don't understand the, Destroying life argument of this. The Egg is going to waste, why not use it. Hell, you're going to actually be doing something with said egg instead of watching it go on a tampon.

 

[FromTheSouth]

The egg has to be fertilized. The moral argument is at what point is this thing alive....

Is it viability or fertilization. And if stem cells can be mass produced from adult hair follicles, then why would even need embryos? My point is that stem cell research is great, and if we don't need to start life just to end it, then it's even better.

 

[Shocky]

That's the age old argument I suppose. I pretty much see the fertilized egg as a race horse. People are always complaining about racing horses and it's so cruel and barbaric, yadda yadda. Whatever the name of the horse taht died in teh Derby this year set it all of again. Anyways, to the point. Why are we so cruel to the horses, why push them so hard, they deserve a freee life and all of that jazz.

Then when you think about it, would this horse even be alive if it weren't for breeding specifically designed for race horses. The horse wouldn't be alive, because it's parents weren't alive. That's the way I see the stem cell research with embryos. The eggs are going to waste, and they are only being created for the sole purpose of creating stem cells. You are creating life, but using the lift in a different way then what it was intended for. That life and cluster of cells is going to help preserve another life, so in essence, it's still life.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I do not value human life and animal equally.

Human life is something completely different, as we can talk, think, and choose. Animals do what they are told. Therein lies the difference.

If we could fertilize 500 chimp eggs and get the appropriate stem cells, then I would be all for it. I am just sketchy as to whether we need to use human embryos when there are alternatives.

The research is valuable, and should be continued. I can rationalize the loss of life with the saving of other lives. But it does raise questions.

First of all, we can't feed everyone on the planet now, extending people's lives seems to make it harder.

Secondly, here in America, social security is a deteriorating fund. When it was introduced, it was a crutch for the weak and indigent. A reminder that the contributions of the young to an economy would be rewarded with aid when they are old. It was not intended to pay for 20 years of shuffleboard. Further extending life will tap that fund even faster.

Is this research's life saving pros enough to outweigh the collateral damage of the cons?