Nature Vs the Environment

[Kestrad]

Mod Note: We are consolidating some threads under broader topic headings in order to allow for a wider scope of discussion and to allow combining discussions where they overlap. This thread is for discussion of environmental versus natural impacts on humanity and other life forms on the planet. Topics include but are not limited to: stem cell research, designer babies, correction of birth defects in the womb, effects of parenting style, and mutations.

Stem cell research is probably one of the most cutting edge biology research we have right now. It has the potential to cure diseases that currently are like death sentences and to reduce or even eliminate the need for organ donations.

On the other hand, stem cells currently can only be obtained by breaking apart a blastocyst to get at the totipotent cells inside--even if the blastocyst was made by cloning (sticking the nucleus of a skin cell inside an egg cell that had its nucleus removed), the potential to become a living, breathing human is taken away. Attempts are being made at using factors to induce pluripotency in cells that have already differentiated, but often those cells unpredictably mutate into cancer cells.

Another issue related to stem cell research is the exploitation of the desperate. Many people with terminal illnesses believe that stem cell experimentation is their only hope, and companies around the world exploit this desperation by offering "stem cell treatment." They lure people to other countries because such treatment is illegal in the US. These treatments are almost always fraudulent (at best, they use human cells that aren't stem cells--at worst, they may involve animal cells) and always cost a fortune.

What do you think? Should stem cell research be allowed?

My personal opinion:

Spoiler

There is too much potential at saving people are beyond a doubt alive to not conduct stem cell research because we don't want to kill unborn babies whose state of living is debatable--they are only at the stage of being a ball of cells--no organs or anything, because they haven't differentiated yet. Besides, many, many embryos are simply being refrigerated--they will probably never actually get placed into a womb and get born. What is the point of letting them sit there forever? Why not let them contribute to helping others live? One of the best ways I have heard of putting this is that the ball of cells *is* potential. It has the potential to either become a living being or to help a living being.

In addition, considering the number of desperate people who make exploitation profitable, if the US allowed stem cell research with less stringent requirements, legitimate research could be done on the people who are currently being targeted. Both sides would benefit--scientific research could be advanced, and the people who are being tested on will at least be getting a "cure" that is intended to cure them rather than fleece them.

[MistyoC]

Stem cells can be obtained by other means than breaking apart blastocysts. They are present in umbilical cord blood and in testicular tissue as well. I believe there are other sources, but those are the ones of which I am sure.

[Wolfsister]

As well as the above comment, the cells that are used might not have ever become children. If they are sitting in a petri dish to be experimented on, then they weren't going to be born. Most likely they were never meant to become children by the people they came from.

And yes, I do think stem cell research should be continued. I think that most of the dissenting views tend to come from those who don't fully understand it (admitting that I have limited knowledge as well). But there is great potential in stem cell research, and in my opinion no substantial reason not to follow it through to wherever it leads.

As for exploitation, you're going to get that no matter what. People get desperate, and they'll go for whatever newest thing is brought to their attention. A lot of the time, they actually realize that there is very little chance that the process will help them, but it becomes a judgement call on whether they want to try it anyway. They will have probably tried all the more reasonable, and cheaper, alternatives already. And hey, maybe if more progress is made, they won't have to go out of the country for fake procedures. Maybe they'll be able to get something done here that will actually work.

[Kestrad]

Stem cells can be obtained by other means than breaking apart blastocysts. They are present in umbilical cord blood and in testicular tissue as well. I believe there are other sources, but those are the ones of which I am sure.

True, but those tend to only be multipotent, meaning the things they can differentiate into are limited. Blastocysts are currently the only reliable source for totipotent stem cells.

[Drei Korvik]

I did a report on stem cell research last year. I'm thrilled that there has been some exploration made in that area recently, it seemed like such a long shot when I was researching it. There's some pretty fierce opposition out there.

I am 100% for stem cell research, especially since the most promising method (cloning, essentially the technique used to create Dolly the sheep, but refined) results in no loss of a slightly developed creature. (I do not believe embryos, while they are composed of human cells, can be considered human beings.) I personally am also completely for using the embryos to obtain stem cells, especially from the aborted ones, because if those cells are not used they will simply be thrown away.

However, the common misconception is that stem cells can only come from babies and related sources, but all throughout the human body are stem cells constantly dividing and specializing. Although with current methods those are usually hard to get to, medical science is developing pretty quickly and I believe it won't be too much of a challenge to get them within perhaps a few years. These ones don't have the potential to turn into every kind of cell, but they have a range of things they can turn into, which should be useful enough for any purpose, if the stem needed is obtainable.

The cloning process is probably the best in my opinion because the genetic aspect of it derives from the patient's own cells, meaning there's little chance of rejections as opposed to embryonic stem cells, which although they are most durable and likely easiest to manipulate there's a pretty good chance for the patient's body to reject the foreign cells. The cloning process (which I don't feel like explaining and only understand on a fairly basic level) eliminates the risk without sacrificing much in the way of durability. As I mentioned earlier, this is how Dolly the sheep was made, and she was healthy enough to prove that the cloned cells were still able to specialize into the many types needed for life.
Of course, the obstacles are getting the cells to turn into the needed type and only that kind, and getting past any opposition.

If you can make sense of that, kudos to you. I didn't reread it and a lot is probably just me babbling.

[Knuckerbearer]

I've done a little research on stem cells, as I've written persuasive papers on the subject. Stem cells can come from fat in the body, and also from marrow, from umbilical cord blood, and from the pulp of a baby tooth! We have made some great progress with adult stem cells (the name given to stem cells from the above sources), having already successfully cured in testing diseases like diabetes, multiple sclerosis, brain injuries, and blindness. All this has been done with stem cells only considered "multipotent". Recent research offers hope that we may be able to turn multipotent cells into totipotent-like cells. I think we need to pour way more money and effort into adult stem cell research than what we do.
I am against using embryonic stem cells of any kind, whether from "unwanted" blastocyst, or from clones. I believe in personhood from conception, so I believe the process necessary to get these stem cells kills a person. We haven't had nearly as much luck with embryonic stem cells, totipotent though they be, in curing anything. The cells seemed determined to become embryos, and in some tests, they have grown into cancerous lumps, instead of doing the curing hoped from them.
Adult stem cells have proven far more promising, and they don't have the ethical issues embryonic (cloned or not) do. I say adult stem cells are the way to go.
Unfortunately, many scientists in the U.S. have become somewhat biased against adult stem cell research, denying other scientists funding for promising research on the basis that "we already have stem cells - embryonic stem cells", apparently overlooking that we've already done more with adult stem cells than embryonic.

[Kestrad]

Unfortunately, many scientists in the U.S. have become somewhat biased against adult stem cell research, denying other scientists funding for promising research on the basis that "we already have stem cells - embryonic stem cells", apparently overlooking that we've already done more with adult stem cells than embryonic.

Actually, that's not true. Here in the US the touchy issue is the fact that while you can get stem cells from cloning, that still "kills" a blastocyst. Scientists here have actually been forced to find ways of getting stem cells from things other than embryos just because the government would not fund research on embryonic stem cells for all the years that Bush was president. Perhaps if the funding had been available, then we would be able to use embryonic stem cells as efficiently as we can use adult stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells don't "keep trying to become an embryo," by the way. But if one is not careful with how one stores them, they will spontaneously differentiate (but all into cells of the same type). And any stem cell can cause the problems you described, especially if you don't use them properly. Like you shouldn't inject stem cells into someone's face just because you felt like seeing what would happen--all that would happen is you get a lump of abnormal growth (not quite cancer, can't remember what it's called, though) that will kill you. The problem with stem cells causing cancer actually isn't as common in embryonic stem cells--it's a problem when you undifferentiate adult cells using certain factors. Those factors cause the cell to become multipotent or even pluripotent again, but they are the same ones that can be found in cancer cells.

And as I stated in my first post, I don't believe that a blob of rapidly dividing cells counts as life. Especially because it hasn't differentiated yet. It has the potential to become a living being. It also has the potential to become a cure for a being who is already living, if only we would allow more research on it. Besides, many, many embryos are simply sitting around in freezers in fertility clinics. The chances of them ever getting implanted and getting born are exceedingly unlikely. At some point someone will say "We simply can't afford to keep these freezers that are full of embryos anymore." I think it would be a far greater waste if they were simply thrown out (and they would undeniably die if they were) than if they were used for scientific research. Especially because if they were used for research, they would get cultured, and subcultured, and so on--in effect, they would actually be immortal.

[Alexis]

I've done a little research on stem cells, as I've written persuasive papers on the subject. Stem cells can come from fat in the body, and also from marrow, from umbilical cord blood, and from the pulp of a baby tooth! We have made some great progress with adult stem cells (the name given to stem cells from the above sources), having already successfully cured in testing diseases like diabetes, multiple sclerosis, brain injuries, and blindness. All this has been done with stem cells only considered "multipotent". Recent research offers hope that we may be able to turn multipotent cells into totipotent-like cells. I think we need to pour way more money and effort into adult stem cell research than what we do.
I am against using embryonic stem cells of any kind, whether from "unwanted" blastocyst, or from clones. I believe in personhood from conception, so I believe the process necessary to get these stem cells kills a person. We haven't had nearly as much luck with embryonic stem cells, totipotent though they be, in curing anything. The cells seemed determined to become embryos, and in some tests, they have grown into cancerous lumps, instead of doing the curing hoped from them.
Adult stem cells have proven far more promising, and they don't have the ethical issues embryonic (cloned or not) do. I say adult stem cells are the way to go.
Unfortunately, many scientists in the U.S. have become somewhat biased against adult stem cell research, denying other scientists funding for promising research on the basis that "we already have stem cells - embryonic stem cells", apparently overlooking that we've already done more with adult stem cells than embryonic.

Unfortunately, until we can mix and match genetics like kids mix and match sweets, not every cell may be created from bone marrow (the ones generally used) stem cells. Embryonic cells are completely able to become any body cell. Blastcyst (early stage embyro) cells can be stimuated to form solely new organs or tissues, whereas adult stem cells can be stimulated mostly to produce things such as red blood cells (which, yes is a break through), but other paths can be taken using embryos, hence the emphasis on embryonic stem cell research.

[Kestrad]

To add on to what I said earlier and what Alexis said, adult stem cells that are made to be totipotent are the ones most likely to cause cancer because the factors which induce totipotency also induce cancer. Embryonic stem cells are a lot less dangerous in that respect.

[CocoaLoco]

To put in my two cents, from what I've been able to read on this subject...

The thing about embryonic stem cell research that attracts a lot of people (not saying all, but most definitely some) is that if they do any research on embryonic stem cells, they can get patents. For adult stem cell research, you can't. So, a person could do a couple tests with embryonic stem cells, patent it, and get more money for more lab equipment or other such things.

Also, as far as I've been able to find, scientists have failed to control embryonic stem cells' growth and development, which usually causes tumors to form instead (in fact, as I recall, when it's been done on mice it usually killed them).

As far as forming organs or other complex things out of said stem cells? As of yet, as far as I can tell (unless I'm horribly, horribly mistaken) we haven't even been able to get them to form the simplest things (such as, say, skin), much less stimulate them so they grow into an organ, and actually stop growing when we want them too.

Actually, that's not true. Here in the US the touchy issue is the fact that while you can get stem cells from cloning, that still "kills" a blastocyst. Scientists here have actually been forced to find ways of getting stem cells from things other than embryos just because the government would not fund research on embryonic stem cells for all the years that Bush was president. Perhaps if the funding had been available, then we would be able to use embryonic stem cells as efficiently as we can use adult stem cells.

From what I've heard, at least part of what Knuckerbearer wrote is true. American scientists interested in adult stem cell research actually had to go to different countries a few years back so that they could get some funding for their work, while embryonic stem cell research was being funded here in the U.S. at the same time, with no progress in the field.

Unfortunately, until we can mix and match genetics like kids mix and match sweets, not every cell may be created from bone marrow (the ones generally used) stem cells. Embryonic cells are completely able to become any body cell. Blastcyst (early stage embyro) cells can be stimuated to form solely new organs or tissues, whereas adult stem cells can be stimulated mostly to produce things such as red blood cells (which, yes is a break through), but other paths can be taken using embryos, hence the emphasis on embryonic stem cell research.

Yes, they are completely able to turn into any body cell... Or a tumor, which they're more likely to do at the point we're at in such research. As of yet, scientists have made no breakthroughs in it, while adult stem cell research has already proved to have merit, hence why some people think that we should stop giving embryonic stem cell research billions of dollars, and put more of that money towards adult stem cell research.

Like you shouldn't inject stem cells into someone's face just because you felt like seeing what would happen--all that would happen is you get a lump of abnormal growth (not quite cancer, can't remember what it's called, though) that will kill you.

Would tumor be the word?

And as I stated in my first post, I don't believe that a blob of rapidly dividing cells counts as life. Especially because it hasn't differentiated yet.

Well, I disagree with this (since cells are technically the smallest living things we know of), but I'll not argue the point on this.