Stem cell research breakthrough

[sfsdfd]

Wow, what a <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19253">neat idea:</a>
University of Pittsburgh researcher reports results of randomized trial of new approach at Society for Thoracic Surgery meeting

Patients with severe congestive heart failure who had exhausted all other treatment options showed markedly improved heart function following a procedure in which their own stem cells were deployed directly into the heart by way of four tiny incisions in the chest, according to results of a trial presented today at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Society for Thoracic Surgery. The study, led by Amit N. Patel, M.D., M.S., of the University of Pittsburgh McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, is the first to use a minimally invasive surgical technique.

While preliminary, the results of the prospective randomized trial indicate that a minimally invasive approach to cell therapy is feasible for the estimated 40 percent of heart failure patients whose disease is unrelated to coronary blockages and who therefore cannot benefit from bypass procedures. Moreover, <b>the experience so far suggests the novel stem-cell approach may be a viable treatment for these and other heart failure patients,</b> reported Dr. Patel, director of clinical cardiac cell therapies at the McGowan Institute.

All 15 of the patients who received stem cell injections had some degree of improvement, some with dramatic results, while the conditions essentially remained unchanged in the 15 randomized to receive injections of their own blood serum.

"It is remarkable the level of improvement we've seen in these patients, who came to us with no other medical or surgical options available to them. However, we don't yet fully understand how these cells work, whether they differentiate to become heart muscle cells or cells that promote vessel growth, or whether they serve as homing signals to other cells and substances that help with repair," explained Dr. Patel.
Yet another great triumph for American medicine! ... Oh wait, I forgot, we basically throttled stem-cell research because it's a Tool Of The Devil:
The study took place at centers in South America.
Well, we always have healing by prayer...

- David Stein

[Venusian]

except that i've never heard anyone have a problem with the research in that article, except maybe Christian Scientists

[mosquitobite]

their own stem cells were deployed directly into the heart

Show me where anyone could disagree with that, religiously or not.

My problem is killing 'fetuses' (ie BABIES) to harvest them.

I don't have a problem with using fetuses from IVF that are going to be discarded :( anyway.

I don't have to agree that the federal GOVERNMENT should fund the research either.

2c.

In this case, no babies were harmed in this research from what I can tell.

[Red Dog]

we basically throttled stem-cell research because it's a Tool Of The Devil



Just like the metric system.

[X]

Patients were scheduled to undergo the minimally invasive procedure but were unaware whether they would receive their own bone marrow stem cells or their own serum. Regardless, while under general anesthesia, each patient had bone marrow harvested from their hipbones. The cells believed to have the greatest therapeutic benefit, CD34+ cells, were isolated from the bone marrow and either injected into the hearts of patients randomized for therapy or placed in frozen storage if the patients were randomized to the control group. These patients received the same number of injections into the heart – about 25 to 30 – as the patients in the treatment group but instead of containing their stem cells, the injections were loaded with their serum. Neither group experienced any significant side effects or complications, including abnormal heart rhythms, which had been associated with other stem cell trials.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7511I believe this type of research is federally funded here. It's embryonic that the feds don't pay for.

[sfsdfd]

I believe this type of research is federally funded here. It's embryonic that the feds don't pay for.
But notice that the research <i>wasn't</i> performed here. This is a specific example of a general problem - <i>much</i> of the research in this area isn't, because the rest of the world is gaining a lot of experience working with the most powerful (and common) kinds of stem cells. It makes sense to have the most skilled people doing the work, and for the first time in the last 100 years, that place isn't America.

The discrepancy is only visible now in research journals and test-pilot experiments like this one. That's been a surprisingly fast divergence, given that the ban has only been in place three years, but it's not yet visible to end patients. This will be <i>much more</i> visible in five years, when people are going overseas in droves for their medical treatment.

- David Stein

[X]

I really don't care where it's performed. I am perfectly happy to have other countries develop new drugs and techniques and then let us purchase/license/learn them. Since none of this stuff is illegal there's no reason for people to have to travel overseas for treatment.

We didn't do the first human heart transplant either. But where does everyone go for the best treatment? Hint: it isn't South Africa.

Everyone bitches when we do it and sell the results cheaper to other countries. Let other countries do some of the work.

[Groucho]

Just like the metric system.We don't want a foreign ruler!

[VinVega]

Everyone bitches when we do it and sell the results cheaper to other countries. Let other countries do some of the work.
Is that the American way?

[kvrdave]

We don't allow stem cell research in this country? :hscratch: Did we halt that when when we made abortion illegal?

[sfsdfd]

Since none of this stuff is illegal there's no reason for people to have to travel overseas for treatment.
Sure there is. We're the best in heart transplants not because we did the first one (which we didn't), but because we clearly have the most experience with them. Here, we aren't picking up that much experience with stem cells, because the most general-purpose area of research is completely withheld from our researchers.
Everyone bitches when we do it and sell the results cheaper to other countries. Let other countries do some of the work.
:shrug: That strategy really hasn't worked out for the rest of the world in other areas. As you wrote, everyone comes here for cardiac care. The rest of the world can't lag way behind in research, and then retain its share of medical care by catching up really quickly.

- David Stein

[Venusian]

except this was performed by someone from the u.s.

also the govt is funding studies here: "government-approved trials under way or planned by centers in Texas, Arizona and New York, as well as Pennsylvania."

we even have stem-cell institutes here:

"Researchers find this astonishing, not only because it suggests adult stem cells are more versatile than had been thought, but because it defies medical dogma that holds that heart tissue cannot be regenerated and damage is permanent.

"It looks extremely promising," said Emerson C. Perin, medical director of the stem-cell institute at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston. "I think we'll look back someday and say heart transplants were totally barbaric.""

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/10854709.htm

[X]

Sure there is. We're the best in heart transplants not because we did the first one (which we didn't), but because we clearly have the most experience with them. Here, we aren't picking up that much experience with stem cells, because the most general-purpose area of research is completely withheld from our researchers.The Chinese invented rockets. The Germans improved them and now we make the best.

There is absolutely no reason we can't let other countries do all the trial and error and then pick up from where they left off. When the best methods are found we will become the best at it and advance the technology further.

I hardly think restricting federal funding of only one source of stem cells keeps us from learning how to handle them.

[sfsdfd]

We don't allow stem cell research in this country? :hscratch: Did we halt that when when we made abortion illegal?
We don't grant federal funding (the backbone of research) for projects involving new fetal-derived stem cells. We have some old fetal stem cells available, but they're degraded and completely useless.

We can use other stem cells - including those taken from the patient. The problem is that all non-fetal-derived stem cells have much more limited potential, because they can only form a few kinds of tissue, whereas fetal stem cells can form <i>any</i> tissue. The rest of the world is working primarily or solely with the most general-purpose progenitors, while we have to use much more limited stuff.

There aren't many good real-world analogies for this, unfortunately, because the topic is kind of complex. But I'll try to think of one.

- David Stein

[Venusian]

Here, we aren't picking up that much experience with stem cells, because the most general-purpose area of research is completely withheld from our researchers.

if by general-purpose you mean embryonic, it is not completely withheld. it is just not federally funded.

[sfsdfd]

The Chinese invented rockets. The Germans improved them and now we make the best.
Sure, and we make the best because we've made a shitload of them. How did we do that? By handing the NIH an unlimited budget and saying, "Make us #1." And they did.

Here, we're explicitly telling our researchers to stay the hell away from one promising area of research. They can work with it in a limited and crippled fashion, but they can't use the most powerful form available.
There is absolutely no reason we can't let other countries do all the trial and error and then pick up from where they left off. When the best methods are found we will become the best at it and advance the technology further.
And what if those best methods involve the use of fetal stem cells?

That would not be a surprising result, given that (a) they're more powerful and (b) the rest of the world is primarily using them in their stem-cell research.

- David Stein

[X]

I say save the money and trouble now and pick up the best technologies when they show themselves (as you seem to acknowledge we've been able to do before). You want to do it all from the beginning.

I guess we just disagree, will continue to disagree, and there's no need for us to keep going back and forth on this.

[sfsdfd]

"Researchers find this astonishing, not only because it suggests adult stem cells are more versatile than had been thought, but because it defies medical dogma that holds that heart tissue cannot be regenerated and damage is permanent."
And the very next two paragraphs in the article read:
Scientists caution that human trials so far have been small and preliminary, mostly intended to demonstrate the safety of putting stem cells from bone marrow, blood vessel linings, or other tissue into the heart.

Stem cells from such mature tissues were thought to produce only subsets of specialized tissues; for example, bone marrow produced red and white blood cells. Embryonic stem cells, in contrast, give rise to all tissue in the body but are difficult to obtain.
So it's like our research is not <i>quite</i> as crippled as we first thought. But we're still working at a huge disadvantage - compared to virtually the rest of the world.
if by general-purpose you mean embryonic, it is not completely withheld. it is just not federally funded.
That's like your parents telling you at age 14, "Sure, you don't need to follow our rules! Just find your own job, pay your own bills, get your own house, and buy your own car."

Federal funding is the wellspring of basically all of our research. Without that, nothing new is created. Seriously.

- David Stein

[sfsdfd]

I guess we just disagree, will continue to disagree, and there's no need for us to keep going back and forth on this.
For the most part, I'm fine with that. I think your position is reasonable (but wrong ;) ) and this isn't a subject of great passion for anyone but me. The only reason I bring up these articles, now, is because today is the time to recognize and fix this problem. If we wait until the problem is undeniable, it will really be too late to fix it.

- David Stein

[Venusian]

Federal funding is the wellspring of basically all of our research. Without that, nothing new is created. Seriously.

come on now, you know that isn't true. look at the technology market. most of that is funded through private research. even most new drugs come from private companies

[Ralph Wiggum]

come on now, you know that isn't true. look at the technology market. most of that is funded through private research. even most new drugs come from private companies

Yeah, but those fields produce products which can recoup hosts in a retail environment. And they're still supported by government subsidies.

The reason research of this scale needs government funding is because it is too expensive for any for-profit private entity to pursue and non-profit entities are even more handicapped by its scope. Really, it's the humane thing to do and there is no good reason why the government shouldn't back this research.

[kvrdave]

Yeah, but those fields produce products which can recoup hosts in a retail environment. And they're still supported by government subsidies.

The reason research of this scale needs government funding is because it is too expensive for any for-profit private entity to pursue and non-profit entities are even more handicapped by its scope. Really, it's the humane thing to do and there is no good reason why the government shouldn't back this research.

Are you saying that there is not "for profit" places in the US currently funding and doing this research? Fetal stem cells have to be a very low cost compared to the rest. The cost of them is keeping people from researching it?

Some people find it objectionable. Enough that the Fed won't fund it. There are other things they won't fund either. No biggie, as far as I am concerned.

Non fetal stem cell research has done an awful lot, hasn't it?

[Ranger]

I say save the money and trouble now and pick up the best technologies when they show themselves (as you seem to acknowledge we've been able to do before). You want to do it all from the beginning.

I guess we just disagree, will continue to disagree, and there's no need for us to keep going back and forth on this.
We provide defense to Japan, therefore Japan should provide us medical research. If they refuse to cooperate, we give North Korea and China the green light to invade.
Amount Japan has in reserves - nearly $900 billion.

[Venusian]

Really, it's the humane thing to do and there is no good reason why the government shouldn't back this research.

no good reason? how about that a lot of the tax payers don't support it? they think it is very inhumane?

[darkessenz]

Are the reasons for the refusal to fund fetal stem cell research based on economic motivations ?

Are we willing to use the benefits/gains developed by fetal stem cell research or will our moral aversion to this method prevent us from licensing that technology.

Is this is not a ridiculous way to run scientific government r/d policy?

[Tommy Ceez]

So its the US's fault that this breakthrough came from another country because we DO NOT ban this procedure?

Just delete the thread and move along...your in a corner.

[kvrdave]

Is this is not a ridiculous way to run scientific government r/d policy?

Compared to how other things get funding from the government, I'd say this is typical. It is political.

[Goldblum]

Just like the metric system.
:lol:

[Static Cling]

If I remember correctly, even before the Bush-era legislation restricting funding for fetal stem cell research, the studies which showed any promise at all were those studies involving adult stem cells. Even though many scientists (and celebrities, woohoo!) were touting fetal stem cells as some imminent cure-all, the studies I've read involving fetal stem cells ended poorly. Actual, honest-to-goodness scientific research is indicating that adult stem cell research is the way to go. But holy cow, Superman and Mary Tyler Moore are pushing for fetal stem cell research, so they get the press, because celebrity is attractive and research is booooooring. I submit that this is a much more ridiculous way to influence government funding on scientific research & development than "moral aversion," as darkessenz put it.

Here's an interesting perspective on the whole thing from an MIT-affiliated website:
Because [adult stem cells] have traveled further on a pathway of differentiation than an embryo's cells have, such tissue-specific stem cells are believed by many to have more limited potential than ES cells or those that PPL hopes to create. Some researchers, however, are beginning to argue that these limitations would actually make tissue-specific stem cells safer than their pluripotent counterparts. University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Glenn McGee is one of the most vocal critics on this point: "The emerging truth in the lab is that pluripotent stem cells are hard to rein in. The potential that they would explode into a cancerous mass after a stem cell transplant might turn out to be the Pandora's box of stem cell research."

http://www.techreview.com/articles/01/01/innovation20101.asp

[Giantrobo]

I had heard the same thing about Adult stem cells. But Static Cling, NO ONE wants to hear that. The celebs just push what they're told too by their handlers and the Fetal Stem Cell advocates. Anyone who dares to bring up alternatives to Fetal Cells is automatically written off as some Mid America Bush loving Hick who doesn't know shit.

[OldDude]

Just like the metric system.

Actually, the US has been officially metric since it signed the Treaty of the Meter in 1875. US Customary Units (many of which differ either subtly or significantly from British Imperial units) are a fiction foisted on the masses. They are not supported by standards, they are simply defined in terms of metric units. The metric standards are maintained by NIST.

[bhk]

Now if the US govt. in general and Bush in particular would just NOT BAN the common cold, someone in Brazil would finally be able to cure it.

[Red Dog]

Actually, the US has been officially metric since it signed the Treaty of the Meter in 1875. US Customary Units (many of which differ either subtly or significantly from British Imperial units) are a fiction foisted on the masses. They are not supported by standards, they are simply defined in terms of metric units. The metric standards are maintained by NIST.


You might want to forward this info to NASA and their contractors. ;)

[OldDude]

NASA is metric. Their idiot contractor was not, but the contract stipulated metric. He should have been sued for the full cost of the program. That would have put him out of business so they settled on a bogus "confusion" story. It was a direct contract violation. However, better checking and software review by NASA should have caught it too.

Edit: It was bad numbers in a software module to be more specific.
ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1999/MCO_report.pdf
. . .
The MCO MIB has determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was
the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software file, “Small Forces,”
used in trajectory models. Specifically, thruster performance data in English units instead
of metric units was used in the software application code titled SM_FORCES (small
forces). A file called Angular Momentum Desaturation (AMD) contained the output data
from the SM_FORCES software. The data in the AMD file was required to be in metric
units per existing software interface documentation, and the trajectory modelers assumed
the data was provided in metric units per the requirements.
. . .

[Tuan Jim]

In comparison to the above experiment using adult stem cells, here's a short article (http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=4859) describing the results of a fetal stem cell experiment.

[darkessenz]

If I remember correctly, even before the Bush-era legislation restricting funding for fetal stem cell research, the studies which showed any promise at all were those studies involving adult stem cells. Even though many scientists (and celebrities, woohoo!) were touting fetal stem cells as some imminent cure-all, the studies I've read involving fetal stem cells ended poorly. Actual, honest-to-goodness scientific research is indicating that adult stem cell research is the way to go. But holy cow, Superman and Mary Tyler Moore are pushing for fetal stem cell research, so they get the press, because celebrity is attractive and research is booooooring. I submit that this is a much more ridiculous way to influence government funding on scientific research & development than "moral aversion," as darkessenz put it.


So we should ban funding for studies that don't show progress immediately? I agree that if there isn't promising development with a particular research area, then that area should be cut funds. That's why we don't BAN things for moral reasons, we utilize results (which are more politically and socially useful).

Isn't the scientific justification that you are all using for the ban contrary to the moral stance of the president? It doesn't even matter if their was promise or not with "pluripotent" stem cells because it would be wrong to have the feds pay for such an immoral line of research to begin with.

[X]

So we should ban funding for studies that don't show progress immediately? I agree that if there isn't promising development with a particular research area, then that area should be cut funds. That's why we don't BAN things for moral reasons, we utilize results (which are more politically and socially useful). Does that include missile defense?

[kvrdave]

So we should ban funding for studies that don't show progress immediately? I agree that if there isn't promising development with a particular research area, then that area should be cut funds.

How long would you give this particular area, when others show more promise?

[Static Cling]

So we should ban funding for studies that don't show progress immediately? Did anyone suggest that? I was just talking about fetal stem cell research versus its alternatives.
Isn't the scientific justification that you are all using for the ban contrary to the moral stance of the president? It doesn't even matter if their was promise or not with "pluripotent" stem cells because it would be wrong to have the feds pay for such an immoral line of research to begin with. Contrary how? It reinforces the idea of spending more time and energy on non-fetal stem cell research -- because (1) it's immoral to kill fetuses and (2) the promising research has been on non-fetal stem cells.

If there is anyone who has seen past the hype of fetal stem cell research and understands how unproductive (and to many of the patients involved in the research, straight out harmful) it has been, yet still supports its funding and progress -- why, when there are productive alternatives in pluripotent stem cell research? It seems like the proverbial chasing after two birds in a bush when you already have one in hand.

[darkessenz]

Did anyone suggest that? I was just talking about fetal stem cell research versus its alternatives.
Contrary how? It reinforces the idea of spending more time and energy on non-fetal stem cell research -- because (1) it's immoral to kill fetuses and (2) the promising research has been on non-fetal stem cells.

If there is anyone who has seen past the hype of fetal stem cell research and understands how unproductive (and to many of the patients involved in the research, straight out harmful) it has been, yet still supports its funding and progress -- why, when there are productive alternatives in pluripotent stem cell research? It seems like the proverbial chasing after two birds in a bush when you already have one in hand.

(1) Its immoral to kill fetuses. Its immoral to kill civilians too, but sometimes a "war" against things weighs against our conceptions of immorality. A war against the paralyzing diseases of this society would no doubt justify, in my opinion, an immoral action of killing fetuses. Killing fetuses is "less" immoral then collateral damages in a war against Iraq, especially when we are pursuing specific goals for the general welfare of society.

(2) Unfortunately I am not versed in the actual studies of fetal stem-cell research. It seems that the first sucesses may be coming from already developed adult stem-cells, which makes sense. I suspect that coaxing useful results from "pluri-potent" stem cells is much more difficult, but also potentially much more powerful because of their latent capabilities for transformation. It makes sense to me to continue to fund both directions of research until it is clear that one direction can offer all of the benefits of the other. I doubt that has been determined yet...

Does that include missile defense?

I am unclear what you are referring to... I assume you are referring to the general failures of our nuclear missile defense system. In that case, I think the ideological underpinnings of our current global peace need to be considered. The nuclear+economic peace between the global powers is not fragile, but we should be wary of the security dilemma that would arise if we attempt to insulate ourselves from nuclear attack. Other nuclear powers may feel threatened if we continue to develop our "umbrella"...especially if it is a gradual process that could be stopped before completion. I am sure if as we proceed it will be with strategic ambiguity on the development side of things.

[darkessenz]

How long would you give this particular area, when others show more promise?

I have no clue, but I feel like banning it outright for federal funding is not an appropriate response to a burgeoning area of research.

[Cptkirk]

This study doesn't involve embryonic stem cells, which is the issue in dispute. Everybody has stem cells in their blood stream and great advances have been made with those. They are even federally funded. So far there has been no practical use for the embroyic stem cell lines. So funding on them may be wasted money until some positive results are obtained.

[sfsdfd]

come on now, you know that isn't true. look at the technology market. most of that is funded through private research. even most new drugs come from private companies
Completely wrong, <b>Venusian</b>. I mean, yes, most new drugs come from private companies - but they are fully-fleshed-out concepts by the time the company acquires a license to it. Virtually <b>all</b> of the "invention" in biotech happens in academia. They get countless billions of dollars in research every year, and (through serendipity or decades-long gruntwork) they find some promising drug compounds and targets.

Drug companies pick up very promising candidates and put them through the rigamarole of safety testing, FDA approval, patenting, and marketing. But they don't <i>invent</i> anything.

So, yes, federal funding produces biotech research. Pharmaceutical companies produce biotech <i>products.</i>

- David Stein

[sfsdfd]

So its the US's fault that this breakthrough came from another country because we DO NOT ban this procedure?
Uh, you're kind of missing the big picture. What would have happened if, around the time Newton invented calculus (the 1600's), the Pope had gotten his knickers in a twist - "only God can determine sums with infinite precision," let's say - and had banned calculus? And when mathematicians decried this absurdity, people responded, "Oh, don't worry, you can still use addition?"

But don't take my word for it:2003-OCT-13: Australia: Country becoming an international leader: The Australian Broadcasting Commission reported that: "Australia is fast becoming an international leader in the field of stem cell research. While legislators in Europe and the US continue to restrict embryonic stem cell research, Australia is seen as comparatively liberal in its approach. And some of the world's leading stem cell researchers, currently meeting in Melbourne, say that Europe's loss will be Australia's gain....Australia is poised to pick up new researchers, and research, that might otherwise have been done overseas." After an extended debate in 2002, culminated by a free-vote, the Australian Parliament authorized the use of new human embryos in stem cell research.
- David Stein

[kvrdave]

I have no clue, but I feel like banning it outright for federal funding is not an appropriate response to a burgeoning area of research.

But that is because you have no moral problem with it. Many do, and as a result it is a political issue. If it had some results rather than just lots of promise, there might be more political swing the other way. The other stem cell research seems to have more results.

Anyway, we live in a political society. Money is spent on things I disagree with, and isn't spent on things I think it should be. It will always be this way.

[sfsdfd]

If I remember correctly, even before the Bush-era legislation restricting funding for fetal stem cell research, the studies which showed any promise at all were those studies involving adult stem cells.
Sure. Many interesting theories go up in flames upon further investigation, contrary to first impressions. (e.g.: as it happens, pure silicon is a really lousy conductor - in order to use it in circuitry, it has to be contaminated; the contaminants help carry the electricity.)

But that determination should be made by science. We shouldn't decree a whole area of research - one that, as best we can tell (and as the rest of the world is learning), is extremely promising - is off-limits because some politicians declare it to be unethical.

As for popular denouncement of embryonic stem-cell research as unethical: Do you <i>honestly</i> believe that such people know anything about the details of the procedure - enough to make an informed ethical decision?

This is the most obnoxious part of the ban: as with gay marriage, the reasons why it's declared "unethical" are poorly elucidated. Most people couldn't tell you <i>why</i> it's unethical. They'd just trot out some talking-points, like "life begins at conception" and "scientists playing God" and "liberal agenda."
Here's an interesting perspective on the whole thing from an MIT-affiliated website:

http://www.techreview.com/articles/01/01/innovation20101.asp
And that's great news. If we can truly "reprogram" adult stem cells to conjure up pluripotency, that would be a great breakthrough - if a patient can have his own stem cells used in his therapies, that has benefits beyond convenience.

But don't you get the feeling that we're putting all of our eggs in one basket? Why should we do that? Technology doesn't work that way. What if this conversion therapy doesn't work out? - now we're even <i>farther</i> behind the curve.

- David Stein

[sfsdfd]

But that is because you have no moral problem with it. Many do, and as a result it is a political issue.
I maintain that only a tiny fraction of those "many" actually understand the issue enough to have a viewpoint. Thus, we are hampering research because some religious advocates, like our president, can easily persuade their followers to support their views.
If it had some results rather than just lots of promise, there might be more political swing the other way. The other stem cell research seems to have more results.
The whole field is in its infancy. What kinds of results do you expect? That's kind of why we have to <i>do the experiments.</i> If they don't work out, then it will be appropriate to shut down federal funding - not because of fuzzy-headed notions of morality, but because the technology doesn't work.

- David Stein

[mosquitobite]

But by your own quote David, they've already had 2+ YEARS to show SOME kind of results.
2003-OCT-13: Australia: Country becoming an international leader: The Australian Broadcasting Commission reported that: "Australia is fast becoming an international leader in the field of stem cell research. While legislators in Europe and the US continue to restrict embryonic stem cell research, Australia is seen as comparatively liberal in its approach. And some of the world's leading stem cell researchers, currently meeting in Melbourne, say that Europe's loss will be Australia's gain....Australia is poised to pick up new researchers, and research, that might otherwise have been done overseas." After an extended debate in 2002, culminated by a free-vote, the Australian Parliament authorized the use of new human embryos in stem cell research.
The adult stem cells have shown greater promise.

And since your article above, although giving glowing reports to Australia because of their policies, has there been any radical developments from Australia SINCE then? :hscratch:

[sfsdfd]

But by your own quote David, they've already had 2+ YEARS to show SOME kind of results.
Do you have any idea how long basic biochemistry research takes? It could be decades before any particular initiative produces a viable therapeutic technology. In fact, it usually takes "years" just to set up the lab.

But this is also exactly the problem. If, as others advocate, we wait for other countries to produce viable technologies and then jump on board - we will be far behind the pack.

The adult stem cells have shown greater promise.
First, that's not an accurate assessment of the research.

Second, it's irrelevant. We should certainly keep researching adult stem cells. We should <i>also</i> be researching embryonic stem cells. I don't see what one has to do with the other.

- David Stein

[mosquitobite]

I don't see what one has to do with the other.
- David Stein

Dead babies who have no choice in the matter vs voluntary donations from adults capable of making that choice.... :hscratch:

I see a very big difference.

[sfsdfd]

Dead babies who have no choice in the matter vs voluntary donations from adults capable of making that choice.... :hscratch:

I see a very big difference.
But, see, that's the key thing - you're not looking at the technology - you're confusing two different technologies in the same portfolio, based on how the research about the technology is performed.

You know, it's funny - given your political bent, I predict that you have no tolerance for those who protest animal research because scientists have to kill fuzzy little kittens in the process. Tell me, <b>mosquitobite</b>, are you a member of PETA?

(Since I can predict the response of avoiding the question, let me now post my reply: I am not equating human embryos with animals. I am making a point about why we have to consider the technology - its benefits for mankind, etc. - separately from how the research is conducted. That question is equally applicable to using animals for research and using embryos for research, and your stance on both issues should be consistent.)

- David Stein

[Venusian]

You know, it's funny - given your political bent, I predict that you severely criticize those who protest animal research, simply because we have to kill fuzzy little kittens in the process. Tell me, <b>mosquitobite</b>, are you a member of PETA?

- David Steini am not a member of peta as i don't agree that animal rights = human rights. but i understand that they do believe that and that is why they think it is the same as the holocaust...oh wait, wrong thread...

[Venusian]

wait, i haven't kept up with the thread, but i'll jump right back in...

are you saying we should or should not consider the method or research separate from the results? end justifying means stuff...

[sfsdfd]

i am not a member of peta as i don't agree that animal rights = human rights. but i understand that they do believe that and that is why they think it is the same as the holocaust...oh wait, wrong thread...
I already predicted this kind of response, but it's an evasion of the question.

I recognize that the standard response from the conservative right is that <b>all</b> forms of human life must be protected, but that animals can be disposed of in the course of research. I also view this as terribly inconsistent. A grown animal has thoughts, feelings, dreams, a fully working brain, etc. - it is undeniably a life. On the other hand, you have a microscopic clump of human cells with no ability to do anything but grow. I don't see any sense in granting the latter a hardcore, inviolate cluster of rights, but not the former.

- David Stein

[mosquitobite]

But, see, that's the key thing - you're not looking at the technology - you're confusing two different technologies in the same portfolio, based on how the research about the technology is performed.

You know, it's funny - given your political bent, I predict that you severely criticize those who protest animal research, simply because we have to kill fuzzy little kittens in the process. Tell me, <b>mosquitobite</b>, are you a member of PETA?
- David Stein

I am not a member of PETA, and I do not put animals on the same level as humans.

With that said, I am against animal research as well...even rats.

See, I see lots of stuff as "playing God" ~ something I think was not His intention. I don't just have a problem with stem cell research or cloning -ptth-

I don't belong to PETA, nor do I actually go out and protest. But I don't do that for stem cell research either.

I can hold a position without politically getting involved, no?

[sfsdfd]

are you saying we should or should not consider the method or research separate from the results? end justifying means stuff...
I believe that embryonic stem-cell research opponents are basing their decision <i>solely</i> on this consideration - case in point: <b>mosquitobite</b>'s responses. I think this is where most opponents of stem-cell research stand.

And I believe that this reasoning is completely flawed. It's flawed for the same reason why people who picket with "Don't Kill The Puppies!" signs are scorned. (Hence, my point: it's interesting that opponents of stem-cell research also excoriate PETA, though the same logic underlies both groups.)

The end <i>often</i> justifies the means. Yes, it's okay to kill fuzzy kittens in order to find a new cancer therapeutic. Yes, it's okay to decimate the entire wildlife population of a tropical island in the testing of an atomic bomb. We do this because the knowledge we gain by killing a single entity will be useful to everyone from this point forward. It's a discrete cost vs. an endless gain.

That exact logic underlies animal research. And it <i>also</i> underlies stem-cell research. We're not killing humans - these cells never had the chance to become human. The cost is minimal, and the technology appears (at this early juncture) to be very useful.

- David Stein

[sfsdfd]

With that said, I am against animal research as well...even rats.
Alright - at least you're consistent.

But you should recognize that you're <i>hugely</i> in the minority now. And if you hadn't noticed, minority views, even 49.9% minority views, are receiving little attention these days...

- David Stein

[Ranger]

talking to my sister who works as an admin's assistant in the research dept. at brigham hospital, I always get yelled at when I say that the feds need to be more conservative in their spending on medical research. :)

A simple explanation of my perscpective is that there is a supply of 10 doctors and a shortage of five doctors. If the government increases funding for research, taking away three doctors (usually the top ones) for research work, there is now a supply of seven doctors, and a shortage of eight doctors. Naturally the price tag for the seven remaining doctors increase.

my point is that the govt needs to spend its money on practical things, surely anyone will agree that federal spending is greatly unorganized. The feds/states need to invest in more medical schools, manipulate high school programs to acceralte learning of the sciences, definitely invest in upgrading/expanding hospitals, etc. Rather than taking radical and expensive steps to cure paralysis or blindness and such, I think it'd be simpler and more worthwhile to invest in programs (esp. special ed) to accomodate their everyday needs and help them find jobs.

But if I had to determine what what would receive federal funding for medical research, it'd go towards research in dealing with bio-terrorism and virology issues.

[sfsdfd]

The feds/states need to invest in more medical schools...
I don't think that's a good idea - it will raise the cost of healthcare, because hospitals will be able to put doctors in healthcare positions currently staffed by non-doctors. The current trend involves deciding which areas of medicine can <i>reduce</i> their reliance on doctors.

On the contrary, we need more nurses - at least in Cleveland, they're in short supply.
...manipulate high school programs to acceralte learning of the sciences...
:thumbsup:
Rather than taking radical and expensive steps to cure paralysis or blindness and such, I think it'd be simpler and more worthwhile to invest in programs (esp. special ed) to accomodate their everyday needs and help them find jobs.
Oh, jeez. Yeah, let's not spend money trying to find a permanent cure. Instead, let's just pay tons of money to support their ailments every day.

By that rationale, we shouldn't be trying to fix Iraq's government, but simply make the military occupation permanent.
But if I had to determine what what would receive federal funding for medical research, it'd go towards research in dealing with bio-terrorism and virology issues.
Well, you should recognize that "virology issues" <i>are</i> medical research: genetics, protein analysis, epidemiology.

- David Stein

[Ranger]

I don't think that's a good idea - it will raise the cost of healthcare, because hospitals will be able to put doctors in healthcare positions currently staffed by non-doctors. The current trend involves deciding which areas of medicine can <i>reduce</i> their reliance on doctors.

On the contrary, we need more nurses - at least in Cleveland, they're in short supply.[/b]
My thinking is that more medical schools would increase the supply of doctors and lowering their price tag. But then again, I expect you to tell me that doctors' price tags are inelastic.

I agree that there is a need for more nurses - nurses, like doctors, are in short supply.

Oh, jeez. Yeah, let's not spend money trying to find a permanent cure. Instead, let's just pay tons of money to support their ailments every day.
:hscratch:
It would be cheaper to find a permenant cure?

By that rationale, we shouldn't be trying to fix Iraq's government, but simply make the military occupation permanent.
Nooo... merely stick to the practical mission - wipe out the insurgents, to do that, our soliders and Iraqi forces need weapons. :)

Well, you should recognize that "virology issues" <i>are</i> medical research: genetics, protein analysis, epidemiology.
- David Stein
Let me be more speciifc - virology issues that pertain to national securiy. Iirc, former hhs head, tommy thompson stressed the importance of being prepared for a biological attack and that the country was quite vulnerable to one. he also said that the feds need to coordinate research efforts to combat the threat. So yes, if federal funding for medical research is strictly done with the "national security" stamp, then I'd support it. The states still would be free to invest in any type of medical research.

Edit: dammit, all the bolding is messed up. :lol:

[sfsdfd]

My thinking is that more medical schools would increase the supply of doctors and lowering their price tag. But then again, I expect you to tell me that doctors' price tags are inelastic.
They're <i>fairly</i> inelastic. Hospitals are always complaining that they don't have enough doctors to staff all of their medical needs, and have to shift some responsibility to interns, nurses, etc. Insurers see this as a good thing; hospitals don't. If more doctors were available to hospitals, I think you'd see the cost of healthcare rise moderately.

:hscratch:
It would be cheaper to find a permenant cure?
I believe it would. Consider that we have very nearly cured deafness, through a fairly simple cochlear implant - a one-time, fairly cheap surgery can make that person more productive and less dependent on others for resources. Cures for blindness would be more expensive, but would cure a much more profound disability.

Basically, these one-time methods permanently free these people from reliance on resources - not just immeasurable ones like families, but also lifelong reliance on government resources.
Let me be more speciifc - virology issues that pertain to national securiy.
But you've picked a pretty poor example for this. We understand viruses so poorly that there <i>isn't</i> a separate kind of research for "bioterrorism."

To highlight the primitiveness of our technologies in this area: One of our best recommendations for fighting viruses is to take <i>zinc,</i> with the hope that it disrupts reverse transcriptase and hampers viral replication. That's very much like chewing tree bark for penicillin to thwart bacterial infections.

We do have one drug - acyclovir - but we're trying to limit our use of it, because if viruses manage to develop a tolerance for it, then we have <i>nothing</i> in our arsenal. (I find that prospect scarier than a hundred OBLs. And the outbreak need not be caused by humans - more likely, it would be the latest ebola outbreak that happens to escape from Africa.)

So at this stage - and for the foreseeable future - there <i>is</i> no separate research that can be focused on viruses as bioweapons. We need to do tons of research on viruses, in purely academic settings.

- David Stein

[Ranger]

We do have one drug - acyclovir - but we're trying to limit our use of it, because if viruses manage to develop a tolerance for it, then we have <i>nothing</i> in our arsenal. (I find that prospect scarier than a hundred OBLs. And the outbreak need not be caused by humans - more likely, it would be the latest ebola outbreak that happens to escape from Africa.)

Wouldn't it be wise to make it a top priority to push for more research in viruses considering how little we know about it? And we might as well push for better health regulation of food and water. Viruses (and bacterium) definitely need to be covered more in academic settings.

[Cptkirk]

The gov't through the NIH/CDC/NIVM does a pretty good job of doling out federal funds for research. Each grant is looked over by several experts in the field, and if the grant meets a number of criteria it is given a number rating with other competing grants. the gov't then funds the top grants. The criteria are A) Does your lab actually have the facilities and experienced staff to achieve a successful conclusion? B) Is the science sound? C) Can you show why this research should be done? D) What is the cost/benefit ratio.

I'll admit politics and who you know can alter your number just like every where else, but the only real way to get a high number is to show some preliminary results to show that a successful conclusion is possible.

This is the reason why embryonic stem cell research is unlikly to get federal funds, despite moral issues. Though money in medical science research has steadily increased every year, it is still finite and won't be spent on unproven technology despite its pie in the sky claims.

Now researchers can still get pilot study funds, which is level that embryonic stem cell technologies are at. The grants can come from state, private or more likely the case the institution the researcher works at. However, I have to say these grants aren't large <10,000 and stem cell research is expensive, I set up stem cell cultures (from peripheral blood) on a regular basis. The best culture media comes from Canada and our friends up north don't give that stuff away for the betterment of mankind. The simple cultures I do cost $700-1000 each time.

[Cptkirk]

I would say our level of understanding of viruses and other infectious diseases are pretty high. Certainly more work needs to be done, but only 4% of Americans die each year of infectious diseases, though 25% of the world dies of them. I think money would be better spent setting up a national cord blood storage facility where all cord blood is stored for free and can be used by anyone needing a marrow transplant.

Just to give a plug to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute www.hhmi.org

They do a holiday lecture series every year and the lecture is available on DVD for free including shipping. The lectures are geared to high scholl students, so everyone should understand the science being discussed, though sometimes the subject matter may not be your cup of tea. Anyway the lectured titled 2000 and Beyond: the Microbe Menace is excellent. One researcher explains bacteria very well and the other is researcher on HIV which he discusses along with the influenza virus and why we need a flu shot every year. You can also preorder the last lecture The Science of Fat, if that pertains to anyone here. :)

[sfsdfd]

I'll admit politics and who you know can alter your number just like every where else, but the only real way to get a high number is to show some preliminary results to show that a successful conclusion is possible.

This is the reason why embryonic stem cell research is unlikly to get federal funds, despite moral issues.
If this were true, there would be no outcry. No one wants to waste money investigating non-working technology - there's too much important research to conduct.

But you're incorrect - we have plenty of indicators that this is very promising research:

<a href="http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/10648.html">University of Wisconsin</a>: "After years of trial and error, scientists have coaxed human embryonic stem cells to become spinal motor neurons, critical nervous system pathways that relay messages from the brain to the rest of the body." (to be published in Nature)

<a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/joci-tom122904.php">Journal of Clinical Investigation</a>: "Transplantation of monkey embryonic stem cells reverses Parkinson disease in primates"

<a href="http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/52225.cfm">Sloan-Kettering Institute</a>: "Embryonic Stem Cells Correct Congenital Heart Defect in Mouse Embryos"

<a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=20094">UNC-Chapel Hill</a>: "Embryonic stem cells treated with growth factor reverse hemophilia in mice"

<a href="http://www.emcell.com/en/news2/">Embryonic Stem Cell Research Institute:</a> Several articles on encouraging study results for using embryonic stem cells to treat diabetes, MS, and rheumatoid arthritis.


And here's the funny part about this: In pulling up these references from scientific journals, I had to wade through <i>tons</i> of opinion-piece websites (including one from foxnews.com) proclaiming that embryonic stem cells have been a huge dud. -rolleyes- <a href="http://www.stemcellresearch.org/stemcellreport/">Here's</a> a prime example: "stemcellresearch.org" is a site cloaked in the stark design style of a scientific publication, but which solely highlights non-embryonic-stem-cell successes and embryonic stem cell failures. <i>Extremely</i> misleading tactic. Oh, and it's hosted by "The Coalition of Americans for Ethical Research."

This has been an interesting exercise in how uninformed moral outcry is swamping the actual scientific dialogue.
Now researchers can still get pilot study funds, which is level that embryonic stem cell technologies are at. The grants can come from state, private or more likely the case the institution the researcher works at. However, I have to say these grants aren't large <10,000 and stem cell research is expensive, I set up stem cell cultures (from peripheral blood) on a regular basis. The best culture media comes from Canada and our friends up north don't give that stuff away for the betterment of mankind. The simple cultures I do cost $700-1000 each time.
All of this is exactly correct. Other funding sources are available, but state grants are quite small and extremely competitive, and private funding is usually given only for research very close to a commercializable interest (can't squander the profit margin.) So the federal funding ban is a severe choke on research in this area.

- David Stein

[Dead]

... I am making a point about why we have to consider the technology - its benefits for mankind, etc. - separately from how the research is conducted. That question is equally applicable to using animals for research and using embryos for research, and your stance on both issues should be consistent.

- David Stein


So, David, do you support research like Hitler's doctors did on prisoners or that which was done in Tuskegee?

If not, then you are being no more "consistent" in your position than those you are trying to pull out with your question above. :)

[sfsdfd]

So, David, do you support research like Hitler's doctors did on prisoners or that which was done in Tuskegee?

If not, then you are being no more "consistent" in your position than those you are trying to pull out with your question above. :)
Ah, yes - leveraging the embryonic stem cell research law by relying on Godwin's law... well played, Mr. Dead. ;)

Of course, it's terrifically easy to dispense with this argument, since there was no science of any kind in the Third Reich's "experiments." It was torture via surgical instruments.

- David Stein

[bhk]

since there was no science of any kind in the Third Reich's "experiments." It was torture via surgical instruments.
There actually was, the medical community does not use it or cite it due to the circumstances it was collected under.

[Cptkirk]

If this were true, there would be no outcry. No one wants to waste money investigating non-working technology - there's too much important research to conduct.

But you're incorrect - we have plenty of indicators that this is very promising research:


- David Stein
I don't want to quote your whole post, these studies have been done in inbred Mice, and to quote the first article, "you simply can't translate what happens in animals to what happens in humans. If you continued checking you would find that most of these experiments have been done using adult multipotent stem cells. Not only is there no outcry using, but you will not have transplantation issues. There was even a television special on heart experiments in Humans on PBS, using the patients peripheral blood as stem donor doctors can get patients to regrow damaged hearts. I'm attending a lecture tommorrow on an update of adult multipotent stem cells, I'll check back after that. The question is why stir a hornets nest when acceptable substitutes are available?

[Dead]

Ah, yes - leveraging the embryonic stem cell research law by relying on Godwin's law... well played, Mr. Dead. ;)

Of course, it's terrifically easy to dispense with this argument, since there was no science of any kind in the Third Reich's "experiments." It was torture via surgical instruments.

- David Stein


As I expected, no real answer. Quite a smooth move too, following the exact steps you predicted conservatives would follow on avoiding your similar question! :lol:

[sfsdfd]

As I expected, no real answer. Quite a smooth move too, following the exact steps you predicted conservatives would follow on avoiding your similar question! :lol:
I thought my answer was apparent.

The Third Reich experiments had no scientific purpose. Experiments like "let's see how much water pressure the human body can withstand before death" are not properly classified as science, but as torture. Rather than preserving as much dignity as possible, these trials sought to magnify it. That was their entire purpose. The "data" derived is of little use.

Experiments that cause the deaths of mice and embryos have a cost associated them - because we don't like killing mice or embryos. But the benefit hugely outweighs the cost; the data derived from them is often used to diagnose and cure diseases.

Thus, I support killing both mice and embryos in order to produce useful data. I don't support killing Jews in order to produce misery. I don't think that's an inconsistent set of views.

- David Stein

[sfsdfd]

I don't want to quote your whole post, these studies have been done in inbred Mice, and to quote the first article, "you simply can't translate what happens in animals to what happens in humans.
Oh, come now. You're being evasive.

We use mice because it's a stepwise process. If we give a treatment to a mouse and it dies unexpectedly, that's unfortunate, but a better result than the same scenario in humans.

It's correct that you can't simply translate animal physiology into human physiology. But that's the research process. Success in mice is encouraging, and evidence that we should go to the next step.

Surely you know this, so I'm not sure why you're suggesting this is some kind of barrier.
If you continued checking you would find that most of these experiments have been done using adult multipotent stem cells.
I don't think that's true. I know that adult stem cells have been modified to be useful in new ways. I haven't seen evidence of modified adult stem cells for these specific uses. (This would also be surprising, since several of the links I posted were announced very recently - like, January 2005.)

Do you have any such evidence?
Not only is there no outcry using, but you will not have transplantation issues.
Again, I completely agree. If adult stem cells work for these applications, that would be hugely preferable.

But we don't know this yet. We know that adult stem cells appear to have a slightly broader range of applications than previously envisioned. It still doesn't look like they're as universally useful as embryonic stem cells - not by a long shot - and the scientific basis for this conclusion is lacking.

That's why we need to conduct the research. That's all embryonic stem cell research advocates are, well, advocating. If it doesn't work, or if we have a better alternative, then that's an acceptable outcome.
I'm attending a lecture tommorrow on an update of adult multipotent stem cells, I'll check back after that. The question is why stir a hornets nest when acceptable substitutes are available?
I'm interested to hear your results.

I think the better question is: Why is our government relying on some poorly-explained notions of morality to stifle a promising area of research? Or, better still: Why is asking the government about this ban equivalent to "stirring up a hornet's nest?"

- David Stein

[Dead]

I thought my answer was apparent.

...

Thus, I support killing both mice and embryos in order to produce useful data. I don't support killing Jews in order to produce misery. I don't think that's an inconsistent set of views.

- David Stein

Oh, it was... as is the fact that you are attempting to use the same type of tactics you said others would use to avoid giving a true response.

From what you have said thus far, your answer would be something along the lines of... "I do not support involunatry medical experimentation on humans of type A, B, or C. On the other hand, experiments on those of type D are completely acceptable and in fact only a small minded person would think otherwise."

Thus, your inconsistency is clear. And, it is much greater in magnitude than someone who says... "I do not support involunatry medical experimentation on humans of type A, B, C, or D. On the other hand, experiments on animals are completely acceptable and in fact only a small minded person would think otherwise."

[sfsdfd]

Oh, it was... as is the fact that you are attempting to use the same type of tactics you said others would use to avoid giving a true response.
You've misread my "tactic."

As I wrote, most who oppose embryonic stem-cell research never reach the stage of evaluating the benefit. They simply see "embryonic stem cells," and their analysis stops there. I noted <b>mosquitobite</b>'s responses as illustrative: the issue boils down to "you're <b>KILLING BABIES!</b>"

I have not taken the same tack regarding Hitler's experiments. Killing Jews is bad. My analysis doesn't end there: I ask what was obtained in exchange for killing Jews. The answer, basically, is nothing. That balance is the reason I oppose it.

In short: I compare the ends and the means. Those who oppose embryonic stem-cell research look <i>solely</i> at the means, and say, "We can't allow this." I maintain that this is inadequate.
From what you have said thus far, your answer would be something along the lines of... "I do not support involunatry medical experimentation on humans of type A, B, or C. On the other hand, experiments on those of type D are completely acceptable and in fact only a small minded person would think otherwise."
That's completely inaccurate.

Let's hypothetically imagine that there is some medical purpose to involuntary medical experimentation on humans of types A, B, and C. I could not reject such experiments without looking at the purpose; if it happens to outweigh the extremely high cost (involuntarily experimenting on people), it might be worthwhile. Admittedly, it's tough/impossible to imagine a technical basis for such a scenario.

- David Stein

[X]

Actually, I don't think you can say that none of the German research was for useful purposes. Some of it was simulating war injuries in order to learn how to better treat the troops, some of it was studying hypothermia, and some was in search of cures for typhus.

Performing these experiments on humans was what was wrong, but some of the research was valid.

[sfsdfd]

Actually, I don't think you can say that none of the German research was for useful purposes. Some of it was simulating war injuries in order to learn how to better treat the troops, some of it was studying hypothermia, and some was in search of cures for typhus.
And what did those experiments involve? Let's see - wounding Jews, freezing Jews, and giving Jews typhus. You'll have to pardon me if I question the strength of the scientific motivation behind such experiments.

If they wanted to study the effects of different war injury treatments, why not just practice on German soldiers wounded in battle or inflicted with typhoid fever? You can't get much more authentic than that.

- David Stein

[X]

And using the same logic why not experiment on adult stem cells until we get it figured out and then consider moving to stem cells from embryos if they become necessary?
If they wanted to study the effects of different war injury treatments, why not just practice on German soldiers wounded in battle or inflicted with typhoid fever? You can't get much more authentic than that.I'm not defending what they did but that's not exactly in controlled conditions and it's pretty hard to test the best ways of preventing hypothermia in downed pilots on the actual pilots.

[sfsdfd]

And using the same logic why not experiment on adult stem cells until we get it figured out and then consider moving to stem cells from embryos if they become necessary?
Do Jews have some biochemical difference from Germans that make them better subjects of medical study? I doubt the Germans would have agreed, given their stated goals of cleansing the Aryan race of the pollution of Jewish genes.

On the other hand, we have two types of tissue available here. Each has advantages: embryonic stem cells are naturally pluripotential; adult stem cells can be harvested from the patient, which is both more convenient and more likely to be compatible. There is a technical reason to treat them differently, and to try each of them.

And why aren't we trying embryonic stem cells? Because the segment of our population that holds the religious view that life begins at conception is currently in power. That is not how science works.

- David Stein

[sfsdfd]

I'm not defending what they did but that's not exactly in controlled conditions...
How do we test drugs on heart-attack victims? Do we take certain people and induce heart attacks? No - we have a large enough population of actual heart attack victims that we can try drugs on them.

I don't think you need controlled "battlefield wounds" of exacting precision. If you're studying wound closure and cauterization techniques, it doesn't much matter if the victim has been shot in the shoulder, thigh, foot, or hand. Surely the hospitals were flooded with patients with those conditions, and surely any promising techniques could have been taught to the medics for field use.

So I maintain that the goal here wasn't to produce a precise medical experiment, but rather to create new "battlefield wound" victims - out of previously healthy Jews.
...and it's pretty hard to test the best ways of preventing hypothermia in downed pilots on the actual pilots.
Those "tests" had no real preventive measure in mind. The question was: "How long can people survive in hypothermia?" The answer wasn't useful. It wouldn't have changed German tactics for rescuing pilots trapped in the sea. It was simply an experiment to try freezing Jews to death in different ways.

Again - none of this has scientific merit. Of course, you'd need an unimaginably strong medical benefit to make any of this permissible.

- David Stein

[X]

Those "tests" had no real preventive measure in mind. The question was: "How long can people survive in hypothermia?" The answer wasn't useful. It wouldn't have changed German tactics for rescuing pilots trapped in the sea. It was simply an experiment to try freezing Jews to death in different ways.They were actually testing clothing materials for one thing. But I can see if there is any bit of validity to the usefulness of these experiments that you disagree with it could harm your stem cell argument so I'm not going to continue, that isn't my goal.

[Dead]

You've misread my "tactic."

As I wrote, most who oppose embryonic stem-cell research never reach the stage of evaluating the benefit.

So, we can kill humans in research if we feel it is benefical enough. Maybe you are being consistent after all. (Of course, I would argue that the people in your PETA example were too. After all, there is nothing inconsist about saying that the benefit from hurting an animal for research is more than the cost, but that hurting humans in the same way is not. Doing so simply puts the humans that would be harmed on a "highest" level, which is always greater than the perceived benefit that can come from it.)


Let's hypothetically imagine that there is some medical purpose to involuntary medical experimentation on humans of types A, B, and C. I could not reject such experiments without looking at the purpose; if it happens to outweigh the extremely high cost (involuntarily experimenting on people), it might be worthwhile. Admittedly, it's tough/impossible to imagine a technical basis for such a scenario.

- David Stein

If you are willing to admit that you would have no problem supporting experiments like those at Tuskegee, then I'll have to admit I was wrong about you being inconsistent. In reality, I don't think you would actually support anything of that nature. Instead, I suspect that my previous assertation was closer to reality. You have no problem with killing a fetus because you do not consider it to be truely human... of course, lots of people didn't think the subjects in Tuskegee were either.

[sfsdfd]

They were actually testing clothing materials for one thing. But I can see if there is any bit of validity to the usefulness of these experiments that you disagree with it could harm your stem cell argument so I'm not going to continue, that isn't my goal.
Heh - I don't think my position is so fragile as that (though I do agree that this line of argument is getting tiresome.)

Even assuming your point is correct and that this was valid research (extremely dubious, but just assuming it's true for the sake of the argument), I don't think that testing new fabrics warrants freezing Jews. I do think that finding cures for multiple sclerosis and other diseases warrants killing unwanted human tissue.

- David Stein

[sfsdfd]

So, we can kill humans in research if we feel it is benefical enough. Maybe you are being consistent after all.
Absolutely. Maybe even in a non-consensual setting.

Of course, the medical benefit would have to be extraordinarily high. In fact, I can't think of anything short of "the immortality of the entire human race" as justifying anything like this. But, yes, the analysis must include the end as well as the means. That's where my logic differs from the PETA folks and the anti-embryonic-stem-cell crowd.
(Of course, I would argue that the people in your PETA example were too...)
Based on my experiences, most PETA folks have no idea how or why animals are used in research. Their focus is limited to "those poor animals." And I've repeatedly asserted the same about most supporters of embryonic stem cell research: they have no idea what the research promises; they just see "those poor, dead babies."

(After all, there is nothing inconsist about saying that the benefit from hurting an animal for research is more than the cost, but that hurting humans in the same way is not. Doing so simply puts the humans that would be harmed on a "highest" level, which is always greater than the perceived benefit that can come from it.)
Then those humans would be shocked - <i>shocked!</i> - to know that such decisions are made every day in testing out new drugs, medical devices and equipment, surgical machines, etc.

People - full-grown people, who are indisputably human and feel pain and have lives - often have bad reactions and get hurt by research. Sometimes, they even die. We know this will happen. We do it anyway.

So, anyone who maintains the stark position that "hurting humans" of any form is too great a cost for medical research - I hope they've foresworn going to any hospital for any treatment, because they would be availing themselves of technologies developed in such diabolical fashion.

- David Stein

[Cptkirk]

Getting more to he actual point of the thread. I would point out the federal funding=money from the public, so the public does have a right to say where that money should be spent. Public outry is why we don't have a nuclear engine and battleship size space craft around Jupiter. Public outcry keeps genetically engineered foods out of our food supply. Public outcry prevents experiments by the U.S Military of giving whole body radiation to retarded children in the 70s from occuring again. Witout public outcry their would be no spending on AIDS research. Just because the technology is around to do something doesn't mean we should do it or fund it. Should we bring extinct species back? there are plans in the works for the mammoth and the Tasmanian wolf. Not all research should be funded and the public does have a right to say what should be