Forums | MacLife

Ribtorus wrote:

But it's not fair to say all stem cell research advocates take the position that stem cell research is the only route to new treatments. Resedit raises a good point but does it in a particularly provocative way.

I've never seen a single stem cell proponent, ever, claim stem cells are the only way to future cures.

They are a very promising cure, and remain a promising treatment for Alzheimer's, but you don't see people claiming they're the only way.

Science is a speculative business.

I've stated that I do not agree with the practice several times in the past.
On this forum.

I think that will be impossible to ever legislate against, so as far as applying political pressure, no - I haven't.

In my opinion it is a wasteful process. They fertilize several eggs, throw them all in, and hope one takes. I do not agree with it. It is however a battle that can't be won in the legislative system, and I'm not even sure it belongs in the legislative system. Not everything I disagree with does. At least not until I finish my evil plan for control of the media and world domination.

NAG wrote:

FutureDreamz wrote:

Why can't they use that technology that makes your own cells revert to stem cells?

It doesn't really work like that. Before I explain the science to you can I ask how much science you've been exposed to (high school, university, etc...)?

I'm a bit young for university or college. Read: Grade 10 Science next semester.

You have legitimate ethical concerns.  And, frankly, they match mine fairly well.

But, you need to realize that it's complex issue - made so by people who are literally dying for cures for some pretty horrible diseases.  How do you tell someone with  Parkinson's that there is a potential cure, but there is no way to research it?  Pretty difficult, I'd think.

This is why it's a touchy issue.  Yes, you, me, and a lot of other people (some who have given it much more thought than either of us) find the manufacture and destruction of human embryos a sketchy practice at best.  But, the fact that probably everyone that you talk to about this could be personally, or close-personally, impacted by a stem cell cure means that it's best to tread very carefully in these conversations.

FutureDreamz wrote:

NAG wrote:

FutureDreamz wrote:

Why can't they use that technology that makes your own cells revert to stem cells?

It doesn't really work like that. Before I explain the science to you can I ask how much science you've been exposed to (high school, university, etc...)?

I'm a bit young for university or college. Read: Grade 10 Science next semester.

Ah, well since you're still taking science classes you probably should ask your teacher. He/she would probably enjoy you taking initiative and asking such a question.

In sort of a really simple nutshell kind of way embryonic stems cells are different than the adult stem cells that are in you and me.  They've differentiated to some degree. Embryonic stem cells can become any cell in the body while the adult ones are pretty much organ specific. While it isn't out of the realm of reason that we could turn an adult cell into something like an embryonic stem cell we simply would need to know much more to know how to do it (differentiation is a complex process that we do not fully understand). Studying embryonic stem cells and how they differentiate/developmental biology would help us understand many things. This sort of loops back to the study quoted by Res. Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) is a signal that is used by the immune system as well as other pathways. Over production of TNFα can cause all sorts of problems (as well as under production). The immune system relies heavily on relative concentrations of various parts of various pathways. It is a huge mess and we're slowly figuring it out. Basically you can think of cancer and autoimmune reactions as been two sides of the same coin. If your immune system is over zealous it usually ends up attacking your own cells. If it is too lax then cells that should die for the good of the whole don't and you got cancer. One of the things TNFα does is help kill those cells that need to die. Blocking TNFα shows that this might be an autoimmune reaction (type 1 diabetes is another example of an autoimmune reaction). So while blocking TNFα gives us more information it may not be an effective cure. As I said before the science here is pretty complex, and there are always unpredictable consequences to really crude agents that perturb the immune response like enteracept does. This is just one step. Science uses many methods to learn new things and not all of them have immediate application (especially in the medical field).

I hope that wasn't too simplistic (or complicated). I can try to explain more if you like.

resedit wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

Science is a speculative business.

Your point?

Exactly.

Of the body problems that have been suggested that might find some solution via embryonic stem cell research, Alzheimer's seems the least likely candidate despite whatever Nancy Reagan may believe or may have said. While replacing brain cells may have some alleviating effects for things like motor control and language functions (because such things could be relearned), the damage in the prefrontal cortex is likely not even partially repairable. To repair this damage would require the reconnection of the individual brain neurons into their specific patterns. Even if we could do a complete replacement of damaged neurons with those grown from stem cells, recreation of these connections doesn't seem very likely.

Stem cell research holds a promise for the regeneration of the beta cells that produce insulin, so I have a personal stake in the progress of stem cell research.

I have no problem with federal funding of stem cell research. Hopefully, Hitlery will reverse Georgie's restrictions.

resedit wrote:

I've stated that I do not agree with the practice several times in the past.
On this forum.

I think that will be impossible to ever legislate against, so as far as applying political pressure, no - I haven't.

In my opinion it is a wasteful process. They fertilize several eggs, throw them all in, and hope one takes. I do not agree with it. It is however a battle that can't be won in the legislative system, and I'm not even sure it belongs in the legislative system. Not everything I disagree with does. At least not until I finish my evil plan for control of the media and world domination.

And how is this is different from how nature does it?

In nature, one or more eggs may get fertilized, it then requires at least ONE egg to attache to the wall in order to grow.

It isn't guaranteed that any egg will get fertilized in nature, or that any one will attach.  When the in vitro fertilized eggs are placed back in the womb nature ONCE MORE takes its dice roll.

Res, all in vitro does different is to ensure that several eggs are fertilized. The VAST MAJORITY of ALL eggs are wasted.

sturner wrote:

resedit wrote:

I've stated that I do not agree with the practice several times in the past.
On this forum.

I think that will be impossible to ever legislate against, so as far as applying political pressure, no - I haven't.

In my opinion it is a wasteful process. They fertilize several eggs, throw them all in, and hope one takes. I do not agree with it. It is however a battle that can't be won in the legislative system, and I'm not even sure it belongs in the legislative system. Not everything I disagree with does. At least not until I finish my evil plan for control of the media and world domination.

And how is this is different from how nature does it?

In nature, one or more eggs may get fertilized, it then requires at least ONE egg to attache to the wall in order to grow.

It isn't guaranteed that any egg will get fertilized in nature, or that any one will attach.  When the in vitro fertilized eggs are placed back in the womb nature ONCE MORE takes its dice roll.

Res, all in vitro does different is to ensure that several eggs are fertilized. The VAST MAJORITY of ALL eggs are wasted.

It's up to the magic sky fairy to decide the viability of those eggs in nature. The msf's will is not to be trifled with. Each baby must have his stamp of approval, and imbued with the requisite sin; pre-formed and "original".

Last edited by Ribtorus (2008-01-14 11:59 am)

So, shouldn't this have been locked from the get-go?