stem cells - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #46 10-13-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If somatic epithelial cells can be forced to revert to stem cells, why not use them?

B

Would it cost more money to force epithelial cells to revert to stem cells as opposed to using stem cells? If the answer is "no", go for it. No difference. If "yes", that is the answer as to "why not use them?".

MTI · #47 10-13-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

As per google:

unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

AH! yes, that's it.

When I was in school, the definition, as espoused by Father Gouda, a Jesuit law professor was "the unlawful, killing of a life in being, with malice aforethought"

raslaje · #48 10-13-2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Researchers find easier way to make stem cells
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
Sun Oct 12, 1:03 PM ET

Researchers trying to find ways to transform ordinary skin cells into powerful stem cells said on Sunday they found a shortcut by "sprinkling" a chemical onto the cells.

Adding the chemical allowed the team at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Massachusetts to use just two genes to transform ordinary human skin cells into more powerful induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells.

Doctors hope to someday use them to transform medicine. Melton, for instance, wants to find a way to regenerate the pancreatic cells destroyed in type 1 diabetes and perhaps cure that disease.

Wouldn't there be an advantage to using the patients own skin/stem cells rather than foreign embryonic cells as the patient's body would likely not reject his own cells?

Matt L · #49 10-13-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raslaje

Wouldn't there be an advantage to using the patients own skin/stem cells rather than foreign embryonic cells as the patient's body would likely not reject his own cells?

Yes, there might. However, see post #43. Discoveries like this aren't accidental.

dannym · #50 10-14-2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I believe if you do the research you'll find that medical ethicists, regardless of religion, are divided over embryonic stem cell research.

To my knowledge, it is perfectly legal to conduct embryonic stem cell research except from one funding source.

If somatic epithelial cells can be forced to revert to stem cells, why not use them?

B

We are doing that.
A friend of mine had a serious heart problem. He had treatment using his own stem cells and he's pretty much fully recovered. He even made the news because it was experimental treatment and he's only like one or two people in the US who have had it.
Now I don't know if they used somatic epithelial cells, but his condition was pretty serious and now he has no effects from it.

It pretty much proves you don't need aborted fetus's, feti? to get stem cells.

I think the issue is religious in nature. The whole thing can be traced to abortions, where most of the fetus's come from.
It ranks right up there with cloning. Where do you draw the line?

Danny

Matt L · #51 10-14-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

We are doing that.
A friend of mine had a serious heart problem. He had treatment using his own stem cells and he's pretty much fully recovered. He even made the news because it was experimental treatment and he's only like one or two people in the US who have had it.
Now I don't know if they used somatic epithelial cells, but his condition was pretty serious and now he has no effects from it.

It pretty much proves you don't need aborted fetus's, feti? to get stem cells.

I think the issue is religious in nature. The whole thing can be traced to abortions, where most of the fetus's come from.
It ranks right up there with cloning. Where do you draw the line?

Danny

It proves no such thing. It proves that there are treatments that don't require embryonic stem cells. It doesn't prove that embryonic stem cells were not used to develop this technique, and it doesn't prove that there aren't other therapies where only embryonic stem cells are helpful (not that this can ever be proven).

aklim · #52 10-14-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

It pretty much proves you don't need aborted fetus's, feti? to get stem cells.

I think the issue is religious in nature. The whole thing can be traced to abortions, where most of the fetus's come from.

It ranks right up there with cloning. Where do you draw the line?

Danny

So what if we use aborted fetuses? They were scheduled to be aborted anyways. It is not like we are grabbing pregnant women and aborting them to get the stem cells. Instead we waste money and time trying to re-invent the wheel. Here is an idea, if you don't want the technology and gains obtained from aborted fetuses, don't accept the discoveries and their benefits.

Yes it is.

No issues with cloning as yet.

tankdriver · #53 10-14-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raslaje

Wouldn't there be an advantage to using the patients own skin/stem cells rather than foreign embryonic cells as the patient's body would likely not reject his own cells?

As I understand it, the blastocyst gets DNA injected from the patient, so the embryonically (is that a word) derived cell is the patient's own DNA.

I saw the skin cell thing on a PBS doc. They had the guy who discovered it. Japanese guy. The technology is not there yet, but if it does get there, it would be pretty great to defuse the issue.

Botnst · #54 10-14-2008, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So what if we use aborted fetuses? They were scheduled to be aborted anyways. It is not like we are grabbing pregnant women and aborting them to get the stem cells. Instead we waste money and time trying to re-invent the wheel. Here is an idea, if you don't want the technology and gains obtained from aborted fetuses, don't accept the discoveries and their benefits.

Yes it is.

No issues with cloning as yet.

Why not grow them out until useful tissues and organs develop and then harvest those pieces as needed?

B

aklim · #55 10-14-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Why not grow them out until useful tissues and organs develop and then harvest those pieces as needed?

B

I would think that would be a little late since stem cells are no longer present when the fetus is grown out. In any case, it doesn't matter since the female, aka the host, wants the fetus out and it is her body.

Botnst · #56 10-14-2008, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I would think that would be a little late since stem cells are no longer present when the fetus is grown out. In any case, it doesn't matter since the female, aka the host, wants the fetus out and it is her body.

If there is tissue compatibility it is not an insurmountable problem -- transplants are common. I'll bet young organs are better for transplant than old ones.

So since the host wants the tissue out, what incentive could we offer her to continue tissue development for a more useful harvest?

B

aklim · #57 10-14-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If there is tissue compatibility it is not an insurmountable problem -- transplants are common. I'll bet young organs are better for transplant than old ones.

So since the host wants the tissue out, what incentive could we offer her to continue tissue development for a more useful harvest?

B

Well, the problem is tissue rejection. Even if there is no outright rejection, the patient has to be on immunosuppressives for the rest of their lives. Not the best thing in the world. Cloning offers you the opportunity to take their own tissue which removes the chance of rejection.

Therein lies the problem. Will it be a more useful harvest once it is grown from a fetus to a child? Secondly, if it were grown to a child, you cannot harvest since there are laws that say that child is now a human being. Harvesting can only be done BEFORE it becomes a human being.

Botnst · #58 10-14-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Well, the problem is tissue rejection. Even if there is no outright rejection, the patient has to be on immunosuppressives for the rest of their lives. Not the best thing in the world. Cloning offers you the opportunity to take their own tissue which removes the chance of rejection.

Therein lies the problem. Will it be a more useful harvest once it is grown from a fetus to a child? Secondly, if it were grown to a child, you cannot harvest since there are laws that say that child is now a human being. Harvesting can only be done BEFORE it becomes a human being.

I didn't know that there was a law about harvesting. That's interesting. It says you can't do it on humans, presumably without their consent? But with their consent I guess one major barrier falls.

But doesn't that beg the question a bit?

B

aklim · #59 10-14-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I didn't know that there was a law about harvesting. That's interesting. It says you can't do it on humans, presumably without their consent? But with their consent I guess one major barrier falls.

But doesn't that beg the question a bit?

B

You can harvest their organs with their consent or parental consent if they are too young. However, if a fetus grows up to be a child, you cannot do it without the parents consent.

What is the question?

Botnst · #60 10-14-2008, 08:45 PM

Well, the one about when the fetus becomes a child. In many states killing an unborn ---- is murder. I wonder when that miracle occurs?

B