Embryonic Research

kdouglas

just read DaveMcG's thread about the posters against embryonic research around dublin at the moment, just wondering about people's general feelings on the topic, personally im all for it, as far as im concerned it's still only a bunch of cells at that stage, not actual life

bambamconscious

I think research should be giving no. 1 priroity, kill the kids of today to let future generations live.

no need to be up our own ass.

scojones

Moved from After Hours. I hope this forum will be a better home for it. Especially after reading post #2 which I only noticed after moving the thread. Apologies for not having the chance to clean it up first. Cheers.

kdouglas

sorry, should have posted it here in the first place.
cheers

bambamconscious

sjones wrote:

Moved from After Hours. I hope this forum will be a better home for it. Especially after reading post #2 which I only noticed after moving the thread. Apologies for not having the chance to clean it up first. Cheers.

AHEM.

The_Minister

I'm against. The research shows no real advantages for embryonic over adult. The real difference is cost. So far all stem cell research breakthroughs have happened through adult cells.

Owen

There was a link off fark.com recently that read along the lines of "method found of creating superfluous stem cells after embyro formation". This would certainly annoy the pro-lifers. Basically the baby forms as normal, lives as normal, but along the development process it's churning out buckets of extra stem cells.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

The_Minister wrote:

I'm against. The research shows no real advantages for embryonic over adult. The real difference is cost. So far all stem cell research breakthroughs have happened through adult cells.

could you pass on the links where you read all this, because this not at all what i heard, in fact its a total contradiction to what i read. thanks.

Archeron

I would like to learn more about this issue before making a decision. Anyone wiht good links where we could find out more about this, that would be appreciated.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Archeron wrote:

I would like to learn more about this issue before making a decision. Anyone wiht good links where we could find out more about this, that would be appreciated.

so would i....Minister maybe you could share you source with us so we could read the pros and cons... you seem to have information that not even the medical council has...share it around.

AngryBadger

This is arguably OT, but i have to ask, in al the debates about embryonic research, why is no-one addressing where unwanted embryos come from?

Let me clarify here. Embryos for research are generally received from abortion clinics, and hospitals right. Excepting cases where someone is unfortunate enough to have a misscarraige or soemthing similar, if pro-lifers have such a problem with embryos being used in this way, why don't they focus their efforts on encouraging safer sex in a bid to reduce the numbers of embryos available in the first place?

That said I personally have no issue with embryo research.

metrovelvet

AB

The other possible source is remaining unwanted embryos from IVF treatment.

AngryBadger

metrovelvet wrote:

AB

The other possible source is remaining unwanted embryos from IVF treatment.

This is true, so I suppose the argument is mainly about whether an embryo constitutes a human life or not?

metrovelvet

AB - I just reread your previous post and Im not sure you know what an embryo is.

If you miscarry or abort there is no longer an embryo. Pro -lifers cant do much about labs buying sperm and eggs in bulk and creating embryos with them. It has nothing to do with safe sex.

As for whether its a life or not? Oh boy, do you really want to open that can of worms?

AngryBadger

metrovelvet wrote:

Pro -lifers cant do much about labs buying sperm and eggs in bulk and creating embryos with them. It has nothing to do with safe sex.

I know what an embryo is, but I've never heard of the practice you just described, linkage perhaps?

metrovelvet

http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/publications/em-archive/2000.09.04%20market%20embryos.html

Why not make new embryos?
Even with a potential supply of many thousands of spare embryos, there may still be reason for making new embryos, not because the supply of stem cells is too limited but because of the need for unique genetic characteristics. For instance, in research on therapeutic uses of stem cells such as growing organs for transplant or creating cells to treat spinal cord injury, the cells would need to match the immune system of the eventual patient. This might require creating an embryo with a closely matched immune system if none existed in the spare embryo supply. The gold standard would be an embryo with an identical immune system, and that could be accomplished by cloning-creating embryos that are the genetic twins of patients. An expert panel in England has recently advocated allowing just such an approach, though "therapeutic cloning" is not likely to occur anytime soon in the United States.

Private supplier, public buyer
With the expected demand for human embryos created by expanding stem cell research around the world, are we creating a new market in human embryos? U.S. policy paying for research on stem cells that avoids paying for their collection begs the question, since the government is effectively the market maker--a public buyer creating a demand to be filled by private suppliers. Those suppliers will need embryos to provide stem cells, and safeguards will be necessary to prevent a market from emerging in the embryos themselves. NIH policy attempts to address these concerns with requirements that embryo donors can receive no benefit. This includes bans on payment for embryos and on the donation of embryos for the purpose of receiving medical benefit from their use. How these prohibitions will be worked out and enforced is not yet clear, but they will be important in preventing unacceptable incentives for embryo donation or creation.

The explosion of stem cell research means demand for human embryos will only increase, and we need only look to reproductive medicine to see what the future may hold. Embryo donation must avoid what has become the accepted practice of selling human eggs to the highest bidder, with ads for egg donors offering upwards of $50,000. The potential benefits of stem cell research are staggering, but they can't come at the cost of commodifying human embryos or the donors from which they come.



http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/09/17/ethics.matters/index.html

[There are aready 200 -400 thousand remaining frozen embryos in storage.

freddyfreeload

Personally I've got conflicting views on this. Theoretically I'm in favour, but assuming medical advances can be made, can we be sure they would be available to all? Or are we looking at a situation where the rich get richer and healthier, while the poor get poorer and never see the benefits?

That said, the current "Spare Parts" poster campaign is outrageous. I heard on the radio yesterday that the Advertising Standards can't touch it because it's not promoting a product or service, so they can pretty much say what they want.

Perhaps the pro-stem cell lobby could retaliate with posters of the likes of Ghandi, Einstein and Alfred Nobel with the headline: Stem cell research saved my life!

ff