What do you guys think about it? ---------- Personally, I think that banning government funding for it is stupid and close-minded. There are many other ways to acquire embryonic stem cells without harming embryos; stem cells are abundant in the blood of umbilical cords, and can be attained easily from dedifferentiation. Sure, the other methods aren't perfect, but the problems with them are easily fixed with enough time and money. Also, it is important to remember that cells can be obtained by using frozen embryos that are just slated to be thrown away. Also, they have the potential to cure a good deal of the diseases that plague us today, like diabetes and certain forms of cancer. Of course, there needs to be time to perfect treatment, and funding, but if worked on enough, it could be one of the most valuable forms of medicine.
Can you clarify what you mean by 'safe?' Stem cells aren't harvested by harming anyone. I suppose one could say that it can't get any 'safer' than by getting the stem cells from what is going to go into the incinerator anyway.
Perhaps by 'safe' you mean a way to get stem cells that is acceptable to all sides of the moral issue? In that case, I doubt it's ever going to happen. Simply because no matter what you do, there will always be people out there who disagree.
Perhaps by 'safe' you mean a way to get stem cells that is acceptable to all sides of the moral issue? In that case, I doubt it's ever going to happen. Simply because no matter what you do, there will always be people out there who disagree.
There are already two ways of getting stem cells-embryonic ones-without ever touching an embryo. You can get them from the blood of umbilical cords, and by dedifferentiation. Of course, there will always be people who disagree with those methods, mostly because of misunderstanding of lack of ability to understand.
There are already two ways of getting stem cells-embryonic ones-without ever touching an embryo. You can get them from the blood of umbilical cords, and by dedifferentiation. Of course, there will always be people who disagree with those methods, mostly because of misunderstanding of lack of ability to understand.
Of course, I fully understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. However I fully agree with the fact that even the methods you mentioned will still be distasteful to some. ^_^
There are already two ways of getting stem cells-embryonic ones-without ever touching an embryo. You can get them from the blood of umbilical cords, and by dedifferentiation. Of course, there will always be people who disagree with those methods, mostly because of misunderstanding of lack of ability to understand.
True, but these methods do not yield embryonic stem cells, by definition. Umbilical cord "stem cells" aren't even stem cells at all. They are partially differentiated blood cells, that have the ability to transform, thus making them multipotent, but not completely pluripotent like TRUE embryonic stem cells. Secondly, dedifferentiation is such a new field, that we don't even know the exact changes were making. Hell, differentiation is barely understood, with so many post-replication changes to DNA (such as methylation, acetylation, ubiquitination, etc), how can we even begin to understand how to do this process BACKWARDS.
The only way to obtain true pluripotent stem cells is still from embryos. Now, whether you consider a life formed at the time of fertilization, or at the time of embryogenesis, or upon birth, that's the argument here.
@jayz: Exactly. And it needs time and money to develop into a more viable source. See where I'm going with this? Besides, dedifferentiation is a fairly promising field of research, and there have been experiments where epidermal cells have been successfully dedifferentiated into pluripotent embryonic cells.
To say the truth i don't know much about stem cell research but i know that the government should fund this. The research will be done even without government funds so why not take the pride of having helped?
