Posted on 03/03/2009 1:11:12 PM PST by Coleus
Good post. Yes, medicine is progressing at break necy speed. I can say that my ethics mirror exactly those of the RC Church, but they are saying something very important; folks there is another way to do this thing—and with good results. Why is there such a nihilistic insistance on using embryos when there is another way of achieving the good medicine is trying to accomplish.
Not that I expect the RC Church to condone the RU pill, the morning after pill or even a plain old condom. They don’t, they won’t and at least they are standing their ground. But why are the pro-choice folks so enamored with a barbaric procedure such as abortion—let alone partial birth abortion when other methods may be available (won’t make these methods any more ethical in the eyes of the Church)—just less barbaric. Makes you wonder if some of these folks aren’t possessed by the spirit of a human heart eating Aztec sun god needing the sacrifice of innocent human life.
It’s a shame that the RCC is behind the times in research, and would rather see embryos discarded like trash than to participate in research. They’d rather a person die than to have the cells of an already long-dead embryo go to their cure.
Only the embryos that have been destroyed for their stem cells are “dead.” The rest, who are frozen, are in suspended animation.
They are against using the lines of stem cells harvested more than a decade ago.
Speaking of being behind the times, embryonic stem cell research doesn’t work; I’m surprised that you don’t know that.
Is that surprising, considering the first human clinical trial for embryonic stem cells was approved only three days after President Obama took office?!?
There's promise in this branch of research, even if there are many successes with adult/iPSC research.
Researchers produce blood in lab from embryonic stem cells
Researchers Use Human Embryonic Stem Cells To Kill Cancer Cells
Human embryonic stem cells become functional pancreatic cells
</sarc>
escr started in 1981 and to date there has NOT been one successful human clinical trial.
.
Please tell me the date of the first human clinical trial.
I hate to break it to you, but the successful iPSC work was based on embryonic stem cell research.
First off, it's not the Church being "behind the times in research," it's some researchers being "behind the times in ethics." W-a-a-y behind the times. Following WWII, there was pretty much a consensus that scientists would not use research that derived from non-consenting experimental subjects. But I guess lessons learned have to be re-learned in every generation.
Second, it's not true that the Church "would rather see embryos discarded." You must have misunderstood something in your caeful reading of ethics, there. The Church would approve the adoption of these embryonic human beings in the wombs of "rescue moms," as such women volunteer. It's already happening with the participation of embryo adoption agencies--- though not nearly to the extent needed.
The Church has never approved either the in-vitro creation, nor the discarding/destruction, of a human embryo.
When discussing the snail-like "progress" of ESCR in developing anything that's medically usable (present therapeutic applications: -zero-), you consistently ignore the fact that it has never been illegal in the U.S. to use human germ cell lines of whatever provenance, or human embryos themselves, for experimentation. States are free to fund it. Universities are free to fund it. Consortia of private investors and speculators are free to fund it.
And why are they apparently lacking that good-ol' can-do spirit, that entrepreneurial enthusiasm? As you know --- because I've told you --- the Wall Street Journal made this pretty clear two years ago:
James Thomson, the first scientist to derive stem cells from a human embryo, made this point clearly just a few weeks ago: "I don't want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it's going to be very hard." He added, "those transplantation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time."
"Leading British stem cell expert Lord Winston has been even more blunt: "I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody's lifetime, for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will."
Bottom line: private investment money for ESCR has been, at best, a trickle because of the remoteness of the possibility that it will ever pay off. Because as I said, after millions of dollars spent and cutting-edge experiments on 5 continents, all it's been able to produce in vivo is tumors.
But I repeat myself.
I hate to break it to you, but the successful iPSC work was based on embryonic stem cell research. >>>
Um, I hate to break it to you, but ipsc work does NOT involve using embryos. In order to create and obtain these cells, the scientists, not the RCC or any other church, used retroviruses and gene therapy.
The stem cells don't come from DEAD embryos. The embryos are ALIVE, at least until the stem cells are extracted.
The Church HAS kept up with the research, and she sees, as does anyone who honestly wants to cure disease, that ADULT stem cells are the only ones that have actually worked for that purpose.
Adult stem cells didn’t work until they were tried. Embryonic stem cells have just had their first human clinical trial approved. Of course they haven’t helped yet.
Actually, that's true.
The embryos are ALIVE, at least until the stem cells are extracted.
That's not true. The cells used in these experiments come from subculturing a line, not from a live embryo.
And if people don't buy the bread, you'd rather it be discarded than given to the hungry?
By your own implication ("not nearly to the extent needed"), embryos are discarded. That is occurring...it's a fact. And given that end, or the alternative (participation in research), the RCC chooses against the latter.
And why are they apparently lacking that good-ol' can-do spirit, that entrepreneurial enthusiasm?
Perhaps because there's funding available elsewhere.
"[...] those transplantation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time." --James Thomson, pointing out the promise of the research path.
"[...] be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will." --Lord Winston, downplaying hopes, but not saying they won't be helpful.
Bottom line: private investment money for ESCR has been, at best, a trickle because of the remoteness of the possibility that it will ever pay off. Because as I said, after millions of dollars spent and cutting-edge experiments on 5 continents, all it's been able to produce in vivo is tumors.
That claim is demonstrably false, but I have no reason to believe you will stop using it even if I falsify it again. However, any honest third party can do a Google search and see that you're wrong.
But I repeat myself.
Yes, you do...despite being wrong.
Sorry, but even if there aren't embryonic cells used now, they were used in early stages of the research. Shinya Yamanaka studied embryonic stem cells to identify the most active genes in them, to know what to try inserting into non-pluripotent cells with retroviruses.
Without the look at embryonic stem cells, the Kyoto team wouldn't have known what to do to get the embryonic stem cell action.
They originally come from embryos that are alive. You can’t get a cell line, without having had an embryo to begin with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.