My daughter is 24 with a gata 2 mutation that developed into MDS and now leukemia. She's having a stem cell transplant on April 28th. I thank science and everyone involved for saving my daughter's life ❤
Imagine going to the doctor and having blood drawn to formulate the drug you need... Compounding medicine based on your DNA and illness to custom tailor the drug type, dose and affective threshold to improve your life and the life of others will be here.
Fascinating! I have a friend who is paralysed, the idea that at some time in the future nerve cells could be repaired (not specifically discussed here) is amazing. Also could similar discoveries help people with learning disability linked to a particular fault globally in their brain cells and neurology? I hope this research continues, and delivers the hoped for results.
Stem cell research is not a political issue. It is not a religious issue. It is a science issue. The politicians and religious fundamentalists need to stay OUT of science research and let the science community find the answers!!
I'm in the same boat too, and I have it on both sides of my family, and I don't think my time is all that far away as well. so as a future sufferer from a family of sufferers we would STILL rather not see life destroyed for our sake's. I make zero apologies for my position life is precious even if what we do with it isn't.
This research amazes me. I have always been a proponent of stem cell research. These researchers have developed a new technology that can produce genetically different stem cell lines, which they will be able to use to do clinical trials on human cells and possibly come up with new treatments and medications that are more effective and safer for a patient. For most medications, it takes about thirteen years to bring it into market and it costs around four billion per medication. These medications are normally tested on mice. These cells to do completely replicate what happens to a human body when it contains a disease or illness. With stem cells, researchers are able to create "avatar" cells of the human body, such as live motor neurons, cardiac cells, or liver cells. With that being said, they would be able to test for different medications on those cells to see how they react. I agree with the speaker on her point about making medicine more specialized. Every human being is different and so are the reactions we have to certain medications. Her analogy on the drug store and the shoe store was a perfect example. Shoe stores are never a "one size fits all" deal, and neither are our bodies. Stem cells are important when it comes to the advances in the medical field. It hold promising outcomes for a wide variation of situations. With the technology that the researchers have created, stem cell lines can be created in a shorter amount of time and it is genetically arrayed. Again, this is quite exciting for the medical world because in the future we may be able to test medications (pre-existing or new) and make them more personalized and safer for the consumer.
You didn't stress enough the most important point. When you say "in a near future you'll get this or that…" people just go home and dream about it. You forgot to mention "That future won't be as near at all for your grand children to see it, because the current model is designed to take all your money desperately before you die, WITHOUT dramatically changing the number of cured people, because 'curing' is not what the current laboratory-driven model wants, but 'slaving' you". Then give your audience a to-do, to vote against the specific laws that are constantly pushing to keep the old model.
The only question is how much would it cost to transplant stem cell generated organs. I saw somewhere that these stem cell organs could also be customized and would be worth as low as a few hundred dollars. I'm guessing for cosmetic surgeries such as a customized nose would be the same rate as a rhinoplasy which is around $4000? It would be awesome if the price was lower since there won't be anymore artistry involved. Just cut out the old nose then replace with new one then wait for it to heal.....
Stem cells can also be harvested from placentas and still-born foetuses. That said, i don't personally believe that a few cells constitutes life or if it does constitute life that deserves much recognition. It's just a few cells it doesn't have any of the attributes i associate with humans
Hopefully and eventually this will lead to a personalized medicine which does not rely on anyone's opinion or desperate need to make profits at all costs. Current industry is only servicing problems and that helps them stay in business. We need solutions and them free and out of business.
Sure, a lot of people might judge her on her clothing, but in my case I didn't think of it negatively. I can't not notice it unless I close my eyes - it was just unusual so I couldn't help noticing it the whole time. I told my boyfriend later that day about what she said during the TED talk because I thought the information was really interesting, I didn't mention her clothing or anything and didn't even think of it again until I saw your reply.
Having more food only helps corporations? What about the people who only have enough food because of genetic modifications that allowed their plants to survive?
That's the point. Life is also a human concept. (Replace pile of sand with say, mixing of compounds for change of physical attributes) Most human concepts have blurred lines so clearer definitions might be possible but arbitrary in their own right. Slippery slope arguments are a slippery slope. You can make them in either direction without much real support. "banning stem-cell research would lead to religious groups gaining momentum to ban IVF and possibly other life-saving treatments."
I think that problem has to do with society and poverty, and not with any specific research technique. It will become one more possible "last resort" for people on the edge, but it will not be the cause of the underlying problem.
If something is within the set of possibilities in the natural world you can't make it go away. Trying to stop people from researching a certain field does nothing except make you defenseless if someone ever uses it against you. A nation that chooses not to be on the cutting edge of technology chooses to be at the mercy of those that do.
No, it is the definition of human consciousness. Or animal consiousness for that matter. There are conditions that are not reversible including any further advances in medicine; including severe resucitation syndrome, damage to the frontal cortex, and severe hemorraging with necrosis of important pathways. Those are definite pathologies that are non-reversible. And I don't expect anything in the 80 years to change that. Precisely because we aare learning how we have UNDERESTIMATED the brain.
There is much that can be improved in healthcare so this is probably worth exploring but I wouldn't be limited to it. Also, the image at 6:30 with the stats on bringing drugs to market is because of the FDA. Get the government out of healthcare if you want things to improve.
As a fine carpenter, I have not had medical coverage for 23 years. These advancements are apparently not for everyone, yet everyone pays for the research.
your last question is contradictory, which is obvious, but it is because of the very reasons im pointing out: the moment you ask *something/someone* how it would behave, *it* is already a person. however, no matter the answer: you cannot decide that choice for that person. choosing for yourself, or someone else chosing for you is a big difference! someone deciding to sacrifice himself for others could be a hero. someone getting killed though he did not want that is a victim.
You're absolutely correct, taking a life just to get at some embryonic stem cells would be wrong, just like taking a life just to give their heart to somebody else. So I take it you're against heart transplants too?
@alvar0pere7 Thank you for settling that for us. All the human thought and effort put forth to understand the complicated questions science lays at our feet should now be considered solved. What really gets me about your post is that people don't understand how impractical and impracticable it is. You don't live the philosophy you describe. Nobody does.
Life eats itself; it's completely circular. Complex life could not exist in isolation were it not for other forms of complex life. No one understands life without taking into account energy use and the inevitable violence (in whatever form) entailed therefrom. Life is a complex chemical process that is continuous. It certainly doesn't "begin" at fertilization; indeed, neither does collective consciousness.
Are you not capable to comprehend that these researches on stem cells are done for the sake of human salvation? Broadening our understanding of how these unaltered cells work will open up new ways to discover a possible cure for those who are affected by a relentless disease and in need of immediate help.
How much sand constitutes a pile? Some questions don't have definite answers. We farm animals which are well past the point of birth and even able to feel pain. Why is humanity elevated to such a sacred status? Is the tragedy of loss of human life just in the fact that it was life or is it in the life's experiences and effects on others? If you were to never be born, would you donate your lost life to saving others? (Not a fair question, since it can't be asked where it counts)
When people block research into embryonic stem cells, they slow research in stem cells in general. There's benefits you lose from being able to compare stem cells, and in practice all that happened with a moratorium on federally paid for research, the labs involved incurred extra costs to be able to handle two sets of equipment, funded by different organizations.
Old age is a blanket statement, though. Lungs to weak to oxegenate blood causing cardiac arrest are more likely the causes. Lung cancer would be the worst way to die, where Asphyxia suffocates the body, but that's 95% genetic. I'd like to be lights out, when I go. Comatose, or something.
I can't exactly point my finger, but while I found the whole pleading extremely interesting, there was something off about this woman's presentation that made me feel more alarmed and anxious than compelled about the possibilities. I don't know. Maybe it's just how uncomfortable she looked in front of the crowd. Interesting stuff, anyway.
I remember most christians i've heard on this subject telling me it's about the "sanctity of life", which is a neat catchphrase they use to signify that a days/weeks old clump of cells without nervous-system or a brain. need to be given the same moral considerations as a 5yo girl or a 40yo man. I contest this. And at the time were aborted fetuses provided the ONLY means of known stem cells, researching to save so many lives, far outweighs the risks of black markets. instead cures will be delayed
Perhaps it seems to make sense to you that embryos are the limit for what constitutes a human, but what is your reasoning? What if I claimed that a human is not a human until it is born; what then would be your counterargument?
to count as 'living', a thing should be an organism, that is, having metabolism, mixing, dividing, processing elements by itself. someone else doing it doesnt count. the point of the whole slip-slop-concept: it shows where the ideas go and make the decision easier by asking us wheter or not we want the further consequences. would i want to ban ivf? yes. and other 'life-saving treatments'? (note: ivf doesnt do that) depends on ethical implications. just allow anything that extends life? no.
you can, but shouldn't, for instance, imposing something unto others is something that you shouldn't do, like saying to me not to smile... And also I can do what I want, with the same limitations as you, and because smiling is not contained in said limitations... then I can smile if I want, and I do :D
This is a good field for research, although I fear it is also another step towards treating only symptoms. I'd say we should rather realize that a shitty lifestyle (unhealthy fats, too many carbs, standard american diet, no sports, ...) leads to many of those diseases. It's so easy to lead an unhealthy lifestyle and as soon as an illness creeps in to get some pills prescribed. Why not lead healthy lives instead?
Someone not sacrificing himself even though he was already certainly dead is a coward? (I'd like to point out that you can ask a computer how it would behave but that's not a person) Are you okay with euthanasia? (Since it's a person's choice) If the issue is free will, embryos cannot make decisions. Since they were never to be born, they never will. How can you take away a decision from something that can't and could never decide?
Adult stem cells have limited potential in their abilities to differentiate. Pluripotent stem cells have the ability to differentiate to EVERY cell type of the human body. For most diseases where cell replacement is necessary and there are no corresponding adult cell alternatives, what happens then? Many scientists today know how to grow adult epithelial stem cells and for now mesenchymal stem cells are being grown and used. Plluripotent cell cultures or hematopoietic cell cultures require cells be maintained in a very minimally undifferentiated state.
Does your comment on her appearance prioritize her clothes over anything else she might be presenting? My concern is this-it is very easy to use one's eyes for information. This is a popular way of judging people-for how they look as opposed to what they are doing. Yes? No?
it is the inception of a human being, a point in life all of us who live passed through. If you have no respect for the most vulnerable, what makes your life more worthwhile than theirs ? the sheer ego of your argument. it's people like you who make the case for experimenting on the poor for your life because your life is worth more than that poor person's. your argument is offensive. we are both arguing for the lives of millions, only me for ones yet to be born and you for ones who have
I admit embryonic breakthroughs have been made in the last two years, leading to some hope for future advancements, but adult stem cells have been used in a wider array of successful advancements for years. While this may change in a year or two as embryonic breakthroughs are made, as of this moment in time, I am correct.
The current progress of stem cell therapy is not really prevented by "religious wackjobs". Many stem cell lines are available, and can be easily maintained due to their intrinsic properties. Rather, the progress is hindered by our inability to find a good differentiation protocol for pluripotent stem cells. A lot of the protocols in the literature yield low percentage of desired cell types, and cause cancer when injected into mice.
so simple, eh? and why exactly is it the neural network and not something different? is that your difinition of life? funny thing, those 'definite conditions', precluding from 'ever regaining' whatever. we had some of those 500 years ago, which today are easily cured. but you dont expect that anything new comes up?
Does 'human life' begin at the point of fertilisation? That depends on the definition of 'human life'. If your definition includes conscious experiences and memories then it would be difficult to say that a group of embryonic cells is human life. But if your definition does not require such experiences then it is perfectly reasonable that embryonic cells are human life - however, you would then have to apply the definition to *all* human cells, not just embryonic ones. Urgh...
Hey, all that has to happen is for another nation to make developing new medicine half as expensive as doing it in the US and you'll lose a giant industry. You're thinking war, I'm thinking economics. Besides, on what grounds do you want to halt the research? There is no good reason to, especially since there are ways to get stemcells without any embryos in the meanwhile.
it is only halted in America, in europe and asia no such restrictions apply, and althought a lot of research happens in the states -- its not where all of it is done
Every time I hear about scientists modifying viruses to do something for a human body I feel like the zombie apocalypse is just around the corner. Hahah
I agree embryo aren't the beginning of life b/c unfertilized egg & sperm cells are already alive. A fertilized egg or "embryo" is just the next stage in the development of a viable person. No one cares when unfertilized eggs & sperm die. Nor does anyone care MOST embryos abort naturally w/o anyone even knowing. Aborting 9 wk embryo is death but not the same as killing a 30 wk fetus b/c its much less developed. Still, I strongly object to your comparing embryos to cancer. Embryos are NOT cancer.
I'm not saying adult stem cells are the end all and be all of research simply that more advances with adult stems cells have been made to date, while embryonic is still years away from significant breakthroughs
but currently has more applications - more cures or developments to mitigate diseases than embryonic stem cells. In time I'm sure that may change, but the science is in its nacency and embryonic stem cells come with a plethora of challenges beyond the adult stem cells. So in time embryonic cells may lead to more cures, but adult stem cells have more immediately practical applications.
Perhaps us, reasonable people who want stemcell research to less obstacles, should try and convince the radical animal rights organisations, PETA etc.. that this is a good and big step towards eliminating medical testing on animals.. and use their shrill hyperbolic voices to cancel out the Christian right =)
My daughter is 24 with a gata 2 mutation that developed into MDS and now leukemia. She's having a stem cell transplant on April 28th. I thank science and everyone involved for saving my daughter's life ❤
astounding, absolutely incredible
very important talk.
Imagine going to the doctor and having blood drawn to formulate the drug you need... Compounding medicine based on your DNA and illness to custom tailor the drug type, dose and affective threshold to improve your life and the life of others will be here.
Sure, but probably not in our lifetime.
No individual life if precious, not yours, not mine, not any embryo's. What IS significant is human progress.
Fascinating! I have a friend who is paralysed, the idea that at some time in the future nerve cells could be repaired (not specifically discussed here) is amazing. Also could similar discoveries help people with learning disability linked to a particular fault globally in their brain cells and neurology? I hope this research continues, and delivers the hoped for results.
Stem cell research is not a political issue. It is not a religious issue. It is a science issue. The politicians and religious fundamentalists need to stay OUT of science research and let the science community find the answers!!
Embryonic stem cell research has moral issues
ດດບບບຊ
Would like to see this video updated with IPSC cells. No real need for embryonic stem cells anymore.
Im currently a student in college and i total interest are cells. This is incredibly so interesting to me !!
Ambitious, i wish them (us) luck.
Yes please.
Woop! Woop!
Well said my friend. Well said...
You have my moral support. Let's do it.
It's almost a year later; why am I only hearing about this now, by means of a youtube suggestion box and not from a major news agency?
I'm in the same boat too, and I have it on both sides of my family, and I don't think my time is all that far away as well. so as a future sufferer from a family of sufferers we would STILL rather not see life destroyed for our sake's. I make zero apologies for my position life is precious even if what we do with it isn't.
Can't wait! :O
It is completely asinine that stem cell research is hitting so much opposition in this day in age. There is so much potential in it.
Great woman
This research amazes me. I have always been a proponent of stem cell research. These researchers have developed a new technology that can produce genetically different stem cell lines, which they will be able to use to do clinical trials on human cells and possibly come up with new treatments and medications that are more effective and safer for a patient.
For most medications, it takes about thirteen years to bring it into market and it costs around four billion per medication. These medications are normally tested on mice. These cells to do completely replicate what happens to a human body when it contains a disease or illness. With stem cells, researchers are able to create "avatar" cells of the human body, such as live motor neurons, cardiac cells, or liver cells. With that being said, they would be able to test for different medications on those cells to see how they react.
I agree with the speaker on her point about making medicine more specialized. Every human being is different and so are the reactions we have to certain medications. Her analogy on the drug store and the shoe store was a perfect example. Shoe stores are never a "one size fits all" deal, and neither are our bodies. Stem cells are important when it comes to the advances in the medical field. It hold promising outcomes for a wide variation of situations.
With the technology that the researchers have created, stem cell lines can be created in a shorter amount of time and it is genetically arrayed. Again, this is quite exciting for the medical world because in the future we may be able to test medications (pre-existing or new) and make them more personalized and safer for the consumer.
So technically we can be like vampires but with out all the blood sucking and just the healing portion
You didn't stress enough the most important point. When you say "in a near future you'll get this or that…" people just go home and dream about it.
You forgot to mention "That future won't be as near at all for your grand children to see it, because the current model is designed to take all your money desperately before you die, WITHOUT dramatically changing the number of cured people, because 'curing' is not what the current laboratory-driven model wants, but 'slaving' you".
Then give your audience a to-do, to vote against the specific laws that are constantly pushing to keep the old model.
Bring it on
The only question is how much would it cost to transplant stem cell generated organs. I saw somewhere that these stem cell organs could also be customized and would be worth as low as a few hundred dollars. I'm guessing for cosmetic surgeries such as a customized nose would be the same rate as a rhinoplasy which is around $4000?
It would be awesome if the price was lower since there won't be anymore artistry involved. Just cut out the old nose then replace with new one then wait for it to heal.....
When men will be always young and strong without sickness...wow...
The high cost of the FDA cancelling 100% of all new drugs for 8 years running...is now catching up to the drug industry...
Stem cells can also be harvested from placentas and still-born foetuses.
That said, i don't personally believe that a few cells constitutes life or if it does constitute life that deserves much recognition. It's just a few cells it doesn't have any of the attributes i associate with humans
Hopefully and eventually this will lead to a personalized medicine which does not rely on anyone's opinion or desperate need to make profits at all costs. Current industry is only servicing problems and that helps them stay in business. We need solutions and them free and out of business.
Sure, a lot of people might judge her on her clothing, but in my case I didn't think of it negatively. I can't not notice it unless I close my eyes - it was just unusual so I couldn't help noticing it the whole time. I told my boyfriend later that day about what she said during the TED talk because I thought the information was really interesting, I didn't mention her clothing or anything and didn't even think of it again until I saw your reply.
yes, but probably not in the US. Some EU countries allow excess eggs from IVF to be used directly, so there is no "egg drive" required.
Having more food only helps corporations?
What about the people who only have enough food because of genetic modifications that allowed their plants to survive?
That's the point. Life is also a human concept. (Replace pile of sand with say, mixing of compounds for change of physical attributes) Most human concepts have blurred lines so clearer definitions might be possible but arbitrary in their own right.
Slippery slope arguments are a slippery slope. You can make them in either direction without much real support. "banning stem-cell research would lead to religious groups gaining momentum to ban IVF and possibly other life-saving treatments."
Believe whatever you want.
If TEDTalks is a Creative Commons Show, why does it have the normal UA-cam License, and not CC one?
yes, because every right has limitations, is either that or chaos, and if you choose chaose I still be smiling :)
Why not both?
I think the idea is that you always keep a stock of pluripotent stem cells to clone.
Wow!
I think that problem has to do with society and poverty, and not with any specific research technique. It will become one more possible "last resort" for people on the edge, but it will not be the cause of the underlying problem.
If something is within the set of possibilities in the natural world you can't make it go away. Trying to stop people from researching a certain field does nothing except make you defenseless if someone ever uses it against you. A nation that chooses not to be on the cutting edge of technology chooses to be at the mercy of those that do.
No, it is the definition of human consciousness. Or animal consiousness for that matter.
There are conditions that are not reversible including any further advances in medicine; including severe resucitation syndrome, damage to the frontal cortex, and severe hemorraging with necrosis of important pathways. Those are definite pathologies that are non-reversible.
And I don't expect anything in the 80 years to change that. Precisely because we aare learning how we have UNDERESTIMATED the brain.
There is much that can be improved in healthcare so this is probably worth exploring but I wouldn't be limited to it. Also, the image at 6:30 with the stats on bringing drugs to market is because of the FDA. Get the government out of healthcare if you want things to improve.
Genetically skin complexion change treatment it's may be possible Mam?
As a fine carpenter, I have not had medical coverage for 23 years. These advancements are apparently not for everyone, yet everyone pays for the research.
are you not willing to pay for the progression of humankind? do you only care about things if it pertains to you? if so, that's really close-minded
your last question is contradictory, which is obvious, but it is because of the very reasons im pointing out:
the moment you ask *something/someone* how it would behave, *it* is already a person.
however, no matter the answer: you cannot decide that choice for that person.
choosing for yourself, or someone else chosing for you is a big difference!
someone deciding to sacrifice himself for others could be a hero.
someone getting killed though he did not want that is a victim.
Made out of awesome.
I smile if I want to, if you don't like it, don't look ;)
You're absolutely correct, taking a life just to get at some embryonic stem cells would be wrong, just like taking a life just to give their heart to somebody else. So I take it you're against heart transplants too?
oh right.. these were adult ones.. slipped my mind totally, Sorry about that. Had it not been, i still think that idea of mine is an excellent one,
@alvar0pere7 Thank you for settling that for us. All the human thought and effort put forth to understand the complicated questions science lays at our feet should now be considered solved.
What really gets me about your post is that people don't understand how impractical and impracticable it is. You don't live the philosophy you describe. Nobody does.
Life eats itself; it's completely circular. Complex life could not exist in isolation were it not for other forms of complex life. No one understands life without taking into account energy use and the inevitable violence (in whatever form) entailed therefrom. Life is a complex chemical process that is continuous. It certainly doesn't "begin" at fertilization; indeed, neither does collective consciousness.
Yeah, noticed after I hit reply that I'd selected the wrong comment, sorry about that.
Is there any way to donate my eggs to science? To create these embryos?
Are you not capable to comprehend that these researches on stem cells are done for the sake of human salvation? Broadening our understanding of how these unaltered cells work will open up new ways to discover a possible cure for those who are affected by a relentless disease and in need of immediate help.
Agreed. But I'm gonna stick with old age.
How much sand constitutes a pile?
Some questions don't have definite answers.
We farm animals which are well past the point of birth and even able to feel pain. Why is humanity elevated to such a sacred status?
Is the tragedy of loss of human life just in the fact that it was life or is it in the life's experiences and effects on others?
If you were to never be born, would you donate your lost life to saving others? (Not a fair question, since it can't be asked where it counts)
alright, I red your comment with the wrong context in mind, and didn't check your youtube page before I commented. sorry for the confusion.
When people block research into embryonic stem cells, they slow research in stem cells in general. There's benefits you lose from being able to compare stem cells, and in practice all that happened with a moratorium on federally paid for research, the labs involved incurred extra costs to be able to handle two sets of equipment, funded by different organizations.
Old age is a blanket statement, though. Lungs to weak to oxegenate blood causing cardiac arrest are more likely the causes. Lung cancer would be the worst way to die, where Asphyxia suffocates the body, but that's 95% genetic. I'd like to be lights out, when I go. Comatose, or something.
Please let us know how we can contribute. Facebook ? Money ? Vote ?
To a extent. I personally don't think a baby is alive till the heart beats and a baby breathes. But I agree with what you say mostly.
I didn't see your comment until today...
I can't exactly point my finger, but while I found the whole pleading extremely interesting, there was something off about this woman's presentation that made me feel more alarmed and anxious than compelled about the possibilities.
I don't know. Maybe it's just how uncomfortable she looked in front of the crowd.
Interesting stuff, anyway.
Come on people, worry about living, suffering human beings that need treatment right now, not a collection of undistinguished cells.
Muscular dystrophy can be cure with stem cells?
We can't change the major rules of the world. There should be the life cycle in which generations do switch.
I remember most christians i've heard on this subject telling me it's about the "sanctity of life", which is a neat catchphrase they use to signify that a days/weeks old clump of cells without nervous-system or a brain. need to be given the same moral considerations as a 5yo girl or a 40yo man. I contest this. And at the time were aborted fetuses provided the ONLY means of known stem cells, researching to save so many lives, far outweighs the risks of black markets. instead cures will be delayed
Perhaps it seems to make sense to you that embryos are the limit for what constitutes a human, but what is your reasoning? What if I claimed that a human is not a human until it is born; what then would be your counterargument?
1% success rate at bring a new drug to market. Wow. How did they get their success rate so high?
to count as 'living', a thing should be an organism, that is, having metabolism, mixing, dividing, processing elements by itself. someone else doing it doesnt count.
the point of the whole slip-slop-concept: it shows where the ideas go and make the decision easier by asking us wheter or not we want the further consequences.
would i want to ban ivf? yes.
and other 'life-saving treatments'? (note: ivf doesnt do that) depends on ethical implications.
just allow anything that extends life? no.
It’s Auntie Bumble
you can, but shouldn't, for instance, imposing something unto others is something that you shouldn't do, like saying to me not to smile... And also I can do what I want, with the same limitations as you, and because smiling is not contained in said limitations... then I can smile if I want, and I do :D
Great subject, not-so-greater speaker. Please get her a drink of water!
Honestly, I couldn't help noticing also.. not saying it's important or anything
This is a good field for research, although I fear it is also another step towards treating only symptoms. I'd say we should rather realize that a shitty lifestyle (unhealthy fats, too many carbs, standard american diet, no sports, ...) leads to many of those diseases. It's so easy to lead an unhealthy lifestyle and as soon as an illness creeps in to get some pills prescribed. Why not lead healthy lives instead?
Someone not sacrificing himself even though he was already certainly dead is a coward?
(I'd like to point out that you can ask a computer how it would behave but that's not a person)
Are you okay with euthanasia? (Since it's a person's choice)
If the issue is free will, embryos cannot make decisions. Since they were never to be born, they never will. How can you take away a decision from something that can't and could never decide?
And there is. Scientists mess things upp much less frequent than non-scientists, but there is no way to guarantee zero messiness for anyone.
Adult stem cells have limited potential in their abilities to differentiate. Pluripotent stem cells have the ability to differentiate to EVERY cell type of the human body. For most diseases where cell replacement is necessary and there are no corresponding adult cell alternatives, what happens then?
Many scientists today know how to grow adult epithelial stem cells and for now mesenchymal stem cells are being grown and used. Plluripotent cell cultures or hematopoietic cell cultures require cells be maintained in a very minimally undifferentiated state.
Does your comment on her appearance prioritize her clothes over anything else she might be presenting?
My concern is this-it is very easy to use one's eyes for information. This is a popular way of judging people-for how they look as opposed to what they are doing. Yes? No?
it is the inception of a human being, a point in life all of us who live passed through. If you have no respect for the most vulnerable, what makes your life more worthwhile than theirs ? the sheer ego of your argument. it's people like you who make the case for experimenting on the poor for your life because your life is worth more than that poor person's. your argument is offensive. we are both arguing for the lives of millions, only me for ones yet to be born and you for ones who have
individualized medicine could be used as population control in the future. thumb up if you think it could happen.
What does her clothing have to do with anything important? I am asking you seriously. What say you???
I admit embryonic breakthroughs have been made in the last two years, leading to some hope for future advancements, but adult stem cells have been used in a wider array of successful advancements for years. While this may change in a year or two as embryonic breakthroughs are made, as of this moment in time, I am correct.
The only way to obtain more power is to surrender every power, in that contradiction lies the answer to all your questions @_@
Most pro-choice people wouldn't compare pregnancy to cancer. That's just extreme.
but... I like being myself!
yay personalized medicine
The current progress of stem cell therapy is not really prevented by "religious wackjobs". Many stem cell lines are available, and can be easily maintained due to their intrinsic properties. Rather, the progress is hindered by our inability to find a good differentiation protocol for pluripotent stem cells. A lot of the protocols in the literature yield low percentage of desired cell types, and cause cancer when injected into mice.
so simple, eh?
and why exactly is it the neural network and not something different? is that your difinition of life?
funny thing, those 'definite conditions', precluding from 'ever regaining' whatever.
we had some of those 500 years ago, which today are easily cured.
but you dont expect that anything new comes up?
Does 'human life' begin at the point of fertilisation? That depends on the definition of 'human life'. If your definition includes conscious experiences and memories then it would be difficult to say that a group of embryonic cells is human life. But if your definition does not require such experiences then it is perfectly reasonable that embryonic cells are human life - however, you would then have to apply the definition to *all* human cells, not just embryonic ones. Urgh...
She references 9/11. How appropriate... "Black Box"
Hey, all that has to happen is for another nation to make developing new medicine half as expensive as doing it in the US and you'll lose a giant industry. You're thinking war, I'm thinking economics.
Besides, on what grounds do you want to halt the research? There is no good reason to, especially since there are ways to get stemcells without any embryos in the meanwhile.
Stemcell baselines from every ethnicity?
it is only halted in America, in europe and asia no such restrictions apply, and althought a lot of research happens in the states -- its not where all of it is done
Nope. Not listening to anyone who begins a presentation with "So..." FAIL!
Every time I hear about scientists modifying viruses to do something for a human body I feel like the zombie apocalypse is just around the corner. Hahah
NOO she said it.... "Lower costs" The fat cats won't allow that!
I agree embryo aren't the beginning of life b/c unfertilized egg & sperm cells are already alive. A fertilized egg or "embryo" is just the next stage in the development of a viable person. No one cares when unfertilized eggs & sperm die. Nor does anyone care MOST embryos abort naturally w/o anyone even knowing. Aborting 9 wk embryo is death but not the same as killing a 30 wk fetus b/c its much less developed. Still, I strongly object to your comparing embryos to cancer. Embryos are NOT cancer.
I'm not saying adult stem cells are the end all and be all of research simply that more advances with adult stems cells have been made to date, while embryonic is still years away from significant breakthroughs
but currently has more applications - more cures or developments to mitigate diseases than embryonic stem cells. In time I'm sure that may change, but the science is in its nacency and embryonic stem cells come with a plethora of challenges beyond the adult stem cells. So in time embryonic cells may lead to more cures, but adult stem cells have more immediately practical applications.
Perhaps us, reasonable people who want stemcell research to less obstacles, should try and convince the radical animal rights organisations, PETA etc.. that this is a good and big step towards eliminating medical testing on animals.. and use their shrill hyperbolic voices to cancel out the Christian right =)