Log In | Register
In a huge overreach, a federal judge has decided that the legal interpretation that has governed federal support of embryonic stem cell research for more than a decade is invalid. If the ruling stands, it will be a serious blow to medical research.
Wrong Direction on Stem Cells
Seeded on Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:27 AM EDT
Article Source: The New York Times- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (17)
Now Judge Lamberth has ruled that Dickey-Wicker prohibits funding of all research in which a human embryo is destroyed, even if the destruction occurs before the research begins. He claims that the Dickey-Wicker language “unambiguously” prohibits work on stem cells derived from embryos.
How can that be true if the federal government has interpreted it the other way for 11 years and Congress has not disputed that interpretation? If there is any ambiguity, the courts typically give deference to agency interpretations.
- 9 votes
#1 - Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:29 AM EDTThe issue that makes the least sense in regards to this is that these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. So, a little common sense. If we can make world-changing cures and therapies from what would be trash, why wouldn't we?
- 12 votes
Didn't you know? Every sperm is sacred and women shouldn't have any rights when they get pregnant. *sarcasm*
- 9 votes
How about a tad of compassion for those "born fetuses" who are suffering from some debilitating disease? Instead of an attempt to divert attention from clergy hijinx...
- 6 votes
If we can make world-changing cures and therapies from what would be trash, why wouldn't we?
Because the nutters believe that the embryos are human babies and using the embryos is murder.
Every sperm is sacred and women shouldn't have any rights when they get pregnant. *sarcasm*
Though one may also wonder why priests are allowed to waste their sacred sperm by not doing what God wants everyone to do - be fruitful and multiply.
- 6 votes
Though one may also wonder why priests are allowed to waste their sacred sperm by not doing what God wants everyone to do - be fruitful and multiply.
Depends on the religion. There are priests who are married and have children.
- 2 votes
The issue that makes the least sense in regards to this is that these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. So, a little common sense. If we can make world-changing cures and therapies from what would be trash, why wouldn't we?
The above statement is not technically true. The embryos in order to be harvested for the stem cell research would have to be allowed to grow past the point required for IFV 9 at least that is my understanding) so in theory you are incubating these embryos for the soul purpose of using them for research and no longer for IVF. So where does that stop? Like all other issues in this country an inch always gives into a mile.
Also has progress been made on the usefulness of embryonic stem cells? Have we had recent breakthroughs that have sparked a renewed interest in this line of research?
- 1 vote
#2 - Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:10 PM EDTHere's one that I've seeded.
The British researchers discovered that the new auditory cells produced from the fetal cells, performed identically to existing cells in developing ears.
British researchers also recently obtained great success in using stem cells to treat macular degeneration of the eyes, which is a common condition among the elderly. They will be conducting clinical trials on humans within the next two years.
The embryos in question have been signed over in a waiver by the donors who have no use for them because they will be discarded.
- 5 votes
The British researchers discovered that the new auditory cells produced from the fetal cells, performed identically to existing cells in developing ears.
fetal cells are derived from cord blood samples and not embryos.
British researchers also recently obtained great success in using stem cells
the lack of the description of embryonic would indicate that these cells where from adult stem cells.
embryos in question have been signed over in a waiver by the donors who have no use for them because they will be discarded
I understand they have been slated to be discarded. What I was saying is the embryo needs to be incubated for several days more to produce useful cells then what would be required for IVF. Thus you are in theory harvesting embryos for the sole purpose of research. This can and will lead down a dangerous road. What is justified now will be accepted as common place in the future.
Just so we are clear I am not justifying the IVF process but just debating the use of embryonic cells for the purpose of research which, to my knowledge, to date have not proven to be effective in positive outcomes with respect to medical breakthroughs.
- 1 vote
checkmate,
per the wiki nothing has been estalished to date as a positive outcome in humans from this line of research. The testing of the new research has been on hold and no info on outcome that I could see.
- 1 vote
This is from Wikipedia-
Typically, embryos are cultured until having reached the 6–8 cell stage three days after retrieval. In many Canadian, American and Australian programmes[citation needed], however, embryos are placed into an extended culture system with a transfer done at the blastocyst stage at around five days after retrieval, especially if many good-quality embryos are still available on day 3. Blastocyst stage transfers have been shown to result in higher pregnancy rates.[1] In Europe, transfers after 2 days are common.
...as is this-
Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are pluripotent stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, an early-stage embryo.[1] Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50–150 cells.
I understand where you're coming from and I agree that there should be some limits on this as it can be a slippery slope. However at this stage of development it's hard to see a major difference.
Just wondering what you would recommend for these embryos? Why would it matter if it's 6-8 or 50-150 cells? If they're allowed to progress for another day or two, what does that mean? I doubt you're saying that they should then be implanted in someone.
- 5 votes
They are discarded embryos. To say that someone will find wombs for all of them is like saying that we will find homes for all the kids in adoption/foster care. . .which is impossible.
- 5 votes
My point was this. What is suggested is that the process takes 'X' amount of eggs and fertilizers them in an attempt to produce 'Z' amount of viable embryos that will be able to be implanted in the female. I think the number is 6-8 of these. I understand this is so the procedure does not have to be done again. Then the doctor implants one of the embryos in the female and the rest are discarded or frozen. I also understand what is being requested is that these remaining embryos be allowed to grow a few more days to be able to harvest the needed cells from them. In theory this sound like a good plan. As I have said before the problem is that we are now in the business of harvesting embryos for the sole purpose of research and that will only produce problems in the future.
As I posted the advances we have seen that have resulted from stem cells have come from two different sources those being adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells. Neither of these require us to travel down the road of embryo harvest. The problem is I have issues with the whole IVF process because of the exact issue we are discussing. If we are going to fertilize 6 embryos then we should make every attempt to implant them all. That however is another discussion topic. It only applies here because we are faced with the dilemma of disposal of the embryo (death) or harvesting of the embryo (death) and I can offer no other reason for my objection other than I see a greater potential for future problems with the harvesting line of thought and that coupled with no significant milestones in this type of research I can not justify the potential problems.
- 1 vote
It's difficult to have any milestones in a research that is underfunded and under such rigorous restrictions (old cell lines, no funding, etc). It has always been that bench work is funded in this country by tax payers. Later studies are funded by industry. Industry won't touch this until some promise develops and there is a guarantee that the laws won't suddenly change banning it.
- 3 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
