Stem cells without embryonic death?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

See, now there's a solution that everyone can get behind.

 

All the benefit, no moral quandries.

 

Happy now?

[Johnny Coli]

See, now there's a solution that everyone can get behind.

 

All the benefit, no moral quandries.

 

Happy now?

755021[/snapback]

 

 

Our Leader isn't behind it: NYT link

But Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, suggested that the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush, who vetoed legislation in July that would have expanded federally financed embryonic stem cell research. Though Ms. Lawrimore called it encouraging that scientists were moving away from destroying embryos, she said: “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.”

(emphasis added)

 

The pro-life Catholic Bishops aren't behind it (same article):

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director for pro-life activities at the conference of bishops, said the church opposed in vitro fertilization because of the high death rate of embryos in clinics and because divorcing procreation from the act of love made the embryo seem “more a product of manufacture than a gift.”

 

The former chair of The President's Council on Bioethics isn't behind it (same article):

Dr. Leon Kass, former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics, said, “I do not think that this is the sought-for, morally unproblematic and practically useful approach we need.”

 

The GOP in congress isn't behind it (same article):

Congressional Republicans who led the resistance to the embryonic stem cell legislation that had bipartisan support in the House and Senate also said the new technique did not ease their opposition. Brian Hart, a spokesman for Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas and a prominent opponent of federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, said Mr. Brownback’s moral objection remained.

 

The Vatican isn't on board, either (WaPo link):

A Vatican official on Saturday criticized a new method of making stem cells that does not require the destruction of embryos, calling it a "manipulation" that did not address the church's ethical concerns.

 

The reasoning behind not endorsing this new technique, a technique that doesn't mean the destruction of the embryo (which we were all led to believe was the source of the objections), is now bordering on the absurd.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

See, now there's a solution that everyone can get behind.

 

All the benefit, no moral quandries.

 

Happy now?

755021[/snapback]

 

Brilliant. "See...we don't have to kill the embryo to harvest the stem cells. So the IVF embryo remains alive and healthy up until the point that it's incinerated anyway."

 

Of course, technically it's not even an embryo anyway...but let's finish spltting the current hair before we move on to that one.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Our Leader isn't behind it: NYT link

The pro-life Catholic Bishops aren't behind it (same article):

The former chair of The President's Council on Bioethics isn't behind it (same article):

The GOP in congress isn't behind it (same article):

The Vatican isn't on board, either (WaPo link):

The reasoning behind not endorsing this new technique, a technique that doesn't mean the destruction of the embryo (which we were all led to believe was the source of the objections), is now bordering on the absurd.

755062[/snapback]

 

You're yelling at the wrong person. I've never been against stem-cell research, even if it meant destroying embryos. I'm a techno-libertarian, remember? To me, this is the perfect solution to a problem. I can't help it others don't see it the same way.

[Johnny Coli]

You're yelling at the wrong person. I've never been against stem-cell research, even if it meant destroying embryos. I'm a techno-libertarian, remember? To me, this is the perfect solution to a problem. I can't help it others don't see it the same way.

755076[/snapback]

I wasn't calling you out, Joe. Just pointing out that there is no reasoning with these anti-science fanatics.

[UConn James]

Not everyone. The Catholic Church said they would still have problems with scientists messing (I think "manipulation" was their word) with a blastocyst. They also have a problem with IVF. And until Clement VIII liked coffee, that was an 'instrument of the Devil.' And they also threatened to execute Galileo for saying the earth orbited the sun. They are, shall we say, slow to accept science and fast to proclaim things being the Devil's influence. I'm sure other groups will put their 2 cents in that they don't like the length of the syringe or that the researchers should wear white scrubs rather than blue. It's the age-old problem of people who know very little about the situation trying to tell other people and consenting parties what they can and cannot do.

 

Over 70% of the U.S. public agrees that federal funding of ESC research shouldn't be restricted as it is. I resent that it has to be something like this to appease the 20% who equate using leftover cells from IVF that will be destroyed anyway as 'murder.' What is happening is tantamount to the president ordering a stop to animal research b/c the small group of PETA wackos want to 'end animal suffering.'

 

And I'd just add as a disclaimer that there is reason to be a little dubious of this particular company's claims. They've made statements before that turned out to be.... how do you say.... not true.

[UConn James]

Brilliant.  "See...we don't have to kill the embryo to harvest the stem cells.  So the IVF embryo remains alive and healthy up until the point that it's incinerated anyway." 

755066[/snapback]

 

Nevermind that not having to "kill" the embryo implies that it is actually "alive."

 

How can one say that you're killing something that will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER become an implanted embryo?

 

When you need your fill of hypocracy, self-contradicting statements, false logic and utter buffonery all you need to do is listen to these morons in suits discuss it for 10 minutes. It just boggles the mind.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Nevermind that not having to "kill" the embryo implies that it is actually "alive."

 

How can one say that you're killing something that will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER become an implanted embryo?

 

When you need your fill of hypocracy, self-contradicting statements, false logic and utter buffonery all you need to do is listen to these morons in suits discuss it for 10 minutes. It just boggles the mind.

755102[/snapback]

 

I get the same kind of headache when I hear birkenstock-wearing liberals bitching about GMOs and nanotechnology, but you never hear people rip those freaks, do you?

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I get the same kind of headache when I hear birkenstock-wearing liberals bitching about GMOs and nanotechnology, but you never hear people rip those freaks, do you?

 

755115[/snapback]

 

Kurt?

 

I, for one, am a proud member of ABLAN - the Association of Birkenstock Liberals Against Nanotechnology.

[UConn James]

I get the same kind of headache when I hear birkenstock-wearing liberals bitching about GMOs and nanotechnology, but you never hear people rip those freaks, do you?

 

755115[/snapback]

 

All the cool kids now wear Croc's Coastal Clogs.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

All the cool kids now wear Croc's Coastal Clogs.

755141[/snapback]

 

Do you hold the people i'm speakinga bout in the same revulsion? they're all luddites.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I get the same kind of headache when I hear birkenstock-wearing liberals bitching about GMOs and nanotechnology, but you never hear people rip those freaks, do you?

 

755115[/snapback]

This has little to do with the stem cell discussion, but since JSP made it part of it:

 

How did honest-to-goodness small farming, something that's sustained civilization for thousands of years, become the domain of the freaks? Gotta love it. You've also gotta love people who bemoan that people are incapable of fending for themselves and taking care of themselves, yet support in every way companies that make it the norm to not support yourself, and never question where your food is coming from.

 

What's freakish about eating food that was raised/grown within a functional ecosystem as compared to pumping things full of hormones and god-knows-what that actually do make your food freakish? It's already clear we're affecting some of the species on the lower rungs of the ladder with this stuff. I don't really want to see what comes next.

 

We buy locally grown foods from the nearby farmer's market (i.e. not trucked from California or Peru or flown in from China) whenever we can, and if not that, organics. I also have a small vegetable garden and it's a real source of pride when I can come up with a good part of my meal from it. They taste better and I can be pretty sure I'm not using a ton of resources and I'm not ingesting a ton of Franken-food. But yeah, that's total freak-talk.

 

Meanwhile, people complain about how much gas costs. Look up how much of an ecological footprint your dinner occupies, ecologically. It's insane. It doesn't have to be that way.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

How did honest-to-goodness small farming, something that's sustained civilization for thousands of years, become the domain of the freaks? 

755263[/snapback]

 

BECAUSE, "honest to goodness small farming" has been responsible for GLOBAL starvation on more than one occasion. Ask any African "honest to goodness small farmer" about how that's working out for them and they'll tell you they'd rather be doing something else, I'll guarantee it.

 

Facroty farming and GMOs are a sign of progress. They're science brought to the most practical level imagineable.

 

People who have an irrational fear of GMOs, Nanotechnology, biotechnology, robotics and AI are JUST as bad as the Jesus-freaks who cry about stem-cells. Only they're more tolerated by the mainstream because there's no Jesus factor.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What's freakish about eating food that was raised/grown within a functional ecosystem as compared to pumping things full of hormones and god-knows-what that actually do make your food freakish?

 

Nothing...if you want to feed hundreds of thousands. When you start talking "millions", then small-scale, labor-intensive farming of crops left vulnerable to pests and disease becomes just a little impractical.

 

It's already clear we're affecting some of the species on the lower rungs of the ladder with this stuff.  I don't really want to see what comes next.

 

Link? Not that I disbelieve you (I expect it to happen eventually)...I just haven't heard any reports yet.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Nothing...if you want to feed hundreds of thousands.  When you start talking "millions", then small-scale, labor-intensive farming of crops left vulnerable to pests and disease becomes just a little impractical.

755293[/snapback]

I'll agree on that. I also think we could do a lot to curb population growth and solve a lot of the problem that way... Again, another issue. I think there does need to be some factory farming involved, and pesticides to an extent are a way of life. But we do need to use these things with caution. And I, myself, am going to avoid using them or eating food that does use them if I can. Still not sure what's "freaky" about that but, I guess ADM and co. are infallible and have feeding the world as their No. 1 interest. (That's for JSP, not you. )

 

It's also funny that ballplayers using steroids is unnatural and might cause all sorts of adverse effects, but pumping your food full of them is A-OK.

Link?  Not that I disbelieve you (I expect it to happen eventually)...I just haven't heard any reports yet.

755293[/snapback]

Here's one: Link

An excerpt:

The steroids may not be just sitting benignly in the water. In a report that he has just sent to the EU, Guillette reports adverse hormonal changes in fathead minnows.

 

Males just downstream of the feedlots "had a significantly reduced testis size"—which, he says, appears to explain why they also produced less testosterone than males upstream. He also found that the heads of these fathead minnows weren't all that fat—which also makes sense, he notes, since testosterone helps determine skull size.

 

What appears to be happening, he says, is that the waterborne androgens provide some signal that tells the males' bodies to produce less testosterone. In females, the researchers observed a significant increase in the ratio of androgenic to estrogenic hormone concentrations in blood. The biological significance remains unknown.

 

These observations indicate that wild fish "are being nailed by polluting hormones," Guillette told Science News—with males becoming somewhat feminized and females somewhat masculinized.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Facroty farming and GMOs are a sign of progress. They're science brought to the most practical level imagineable.

755269[/snapback]

Practical=human logic.

Sustainable=earth logic.

 

If you affect the system to the point of damage, you're going to get diminishing returns from it no matter how much you think you're in control of it. It's like the difference between stem-cell research (potentially good) and engineering super-human clones (probably not a good idea).

 

We need to reconcile our logic or it won't matter squat how much food we have.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Here's one: Link

An excerpt:

755317[/snapback]

 

Oh. I thought you were talking about genetically enhanced crops. The meat industry is another story: we might feed the world with a genetically engineered strain of rice, but we're not going to with an enhanced beef steer.

 

And yes, I have plenty of references about hormones and antibiotics used in the meat industry getting into the environment (I routinely B word about the overuse of antibiotics, in particular). I thought you'd had a link to some transposon jumping from some sort of engineered corn to a grasshopper or something, resulting in some three-foot tall flesh-eating corn-grasshopper hybrid...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Practical=human logic.

Sustainable=earth logic.

 

If you affect the system to the point of damage, you're going to get diminishing returns from it no matter how much you think you're in control of it.  It's like the difference between stem-cell research (potentially good) and engineering super-human clones (probably not a good idea).

 

We need to reconcile our logic or it won't matter squat how much food we have.

755320[/snapback]

 

That's assuming static technology. That's assuming we'll never get any better at modifying or rectifying problems with the environment. That's a fallacious argument, as technology exists on an exponential curve, with computation leading the way. Think of it this way:

 

175 years ago, the steam engine became practical.

100 years ago, the automobile became mainstream.

60 years ago, the first computer took up an entire warehouse.

50 years ago, air travel became routine and DNA was discovered.

40 years ago, a man walked on the moon.

30 years ago, computers were much smaller, but still weak.

20 years ago, the PC became commonplace and the Internet was started.

10 years ago, the Internet exploded and the entire human genome was sequenced.

Today, you can browse the internet while riding in a car, train, or plane and you can talk on a phone anywhere more or less.

 

Get the point? At each of those steps, SOMEONE was predicting doom and gloom be it for the environment, or employment or what not and yet, the world's economy has grown and the world (whether you or any other environmental kook thinks so) is a cleaner place.

 

Another way of looking at it: 30 years ago, the big scare was Acid rain. Heard anythign about it lately? Last I checked, the Adirondacks were still alive. In the 70s, PCBs were all the craze in the enviro-wacko community. Today, technology has all but rendered that fear obsolete. And the hole in the ozone layer that everyone predicted was going to swallow us alive? How's that looking?

 

Environmentalism is Luddism with a cuddly face. Technology is the ONLY answer to humankind's problems in the future. Technology creates wealth. Technology fuels progress. Technology improves the human condition, or you'd never have had flint tools, fire, writing, language, metalworking or boatbuilding.

 

Technology, RTDB, Technology and Free Markets are what drives humanity's progress. Not socialist "local economy" ideals. There's a REASON humanity went away from that model.