(04-26-2010 12:21 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 01:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:   Be nice. At least they are realizing the good that can come from this: the longer we live, the more $$$ for the church. Of course they like it. As long as it isn't the potentially more effective stem cells-"embryonic".

(04-26-2010 02:13 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 01:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:   Be nice. At least they are realizing the good that can come from this: the longer we live, the more $$$ for the church. Of course they like it. As long as it isn't the potentially more effective stem cells-"embryonic".

By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.

More

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/about.php Wrote:About I-SIS

What is ISIS?

The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1999 by Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders to work for social responsibility and sustainable approaches in science. A major part of our work is to promote critical public understanding of science and to engage both scientists and the public in open debate and discussion. ISIS has been providing inputs into the GM debate that would have been conspicuously lacking otherwise.

...
Mae-Wan Ho (CV), Director of ISIS, gained her B.Sc. in Biology and Ph. D. in Biochemistry from Hong Kong University and began postdoctoral research in human biochemical genetics in University of California at San Diego. ... She is well-known as a leading exponent of a new science of the organism which has implications for holistic health and sustainable systems, and is currently visiting Professor of Biophysics in University of Catania, Sicily. She became scientific advisor to the Third World Network in 1994, and co-founded the Institute of Science and Society with her husband and long time collaborator, Prof. Peter Saunders of King’s College, London who shares her concerns about social accountability of science and science for sustainability. ...

Peter Timothy Saunders, co-founder of ISIS, obtained his first degree in Mathematics in the University of Toronto, Canada, and his Ph.D. in Relativity and Cosmology in King’s College, London, where he is now Professor of Applied Mathematics. He has more than 35 years experience in teaching and scientific research, and is a world authority on complex dynamical systems, with key contributions to Gaia theory and physiological regulation.

(04-26-2010 03:01 PM)I45owl Wrote:  So, what do you think, Dr. Torch? Can Water Burn?

(04-26-2010 03:01 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 02:13 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 01:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:   Be nice. At least they are realizing the good that can come from this: the longer we live, the more $$$ for the church. Of course they like it. As long as it isn't the potentially more effective stem cells-"embryonic".

By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.

More

Setting aside the possibility that the above statements might be correct, do you have a more credible site than one that's reason for being is to fight GM foods?

About I-SIS

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/about.php Wrote:About I-SIS

What is ISIS?

The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1999 by Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders to work for social responsibility and sustainable approaches in science. A major part of our work is to promote critical public understanding of science and to engage both scientists and the public in open debate and discussion. ISIS has been providing inputs into the GM debate that would have been conspicuously lacking otherwise.

...
Mae-Wan Ho (CV), Director of ISIS, gained her B.Sc. in Biology and Ph. D. in Biochemistry from Hong Kong University and began postdoctoral research in human biochemical genetics in University of California at San Diego. ... She is well-known as a leading exponent of a new science of the organism which has implications for holistic health and sustainable systems, and is currently visiting Professor of Biophysics in University of Catania, Sicily. She became scientific advisor to the Third World Network in 1994, and co-founded the Institute of Science and Society with her husband and long time collaborator, Prof. Peter Saunders of King’s College, London who shares her concerns about social accountability of science and science for sustainability. ...

Peter Timothy Saunders, co-founder of ISIS, obtained his first degree in Mathematics in the University of Toronto, Canada, and his Ph.D. in Relativity and Cosmology in King’s College, London, where he is now Professor of Applied Mathematics. He has more than 35 years experience in teaching and scientific research, and is a world authority on complex dynamical systems, with key contributions to Gaia theory and physiological regulation.

Science of the organism? Gaia Theory? Do these folks think that Avatars were generated from adult stem cells?

So, what do you think, Dr. Torch? Can Water Burn?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the topic at hand, it's pretty rare that the real-world works such that you can have your cake and eat it too. If the information from the website above were credible or true, then great - theres nothing to discuss. If "mainstream medicine" (which is surely loathe to the Homeopathic medicine advocates of ISIS) says that there is value or potential value in embryonic research, then attempts to evade the moral and ethical issues involving its research doesn't really help.

For my part, I'd suggest that embryos produced in artificial insemination attempts that are otherwise discarded should be allowed to be used for research. I understand that there is substantial proportion of our society that has objections to any use of embryonic stem cells for research or medicinal purposes and I believe that the ethical rules involved in using them should be correspondingly strict in terms of creating embryos that would otherwise not have been created.

(04-26-2010 03:11 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 03:01 PM)I45owl Wrote:  So, what do you think, Dr. Torch? Can Water Burn?

"Rustum Roy – Distinguished Prof of Materials at Arizona State University and Professor of the Solid State and of Geochemistry at Pennsylvania State University - who followed up the research, and held a public demonstration in September 2007, which was reported in the National Geographic News"

What more do you need to know?

(04-26-2010 03:54 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  I respect your request for better sources...
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/news/companies/stemcells/index.htm
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090310055038zzzz.nb/topstory.html

Hopefully this puts more validity behind the claim.

(04-26-2010 06:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 03:11 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 03:01 PM)I45owl Wrote:  So, what do you think, Dr. Torch? Can Water Burn?

"Rustum Roy – Distinguished Prof of Materials at Arizona State University and Professor of the Solid State and of Geochemistry at Pennsylvania State University - who followed up the research, and held a public demonstration in September 2007, which was reported in the National Geographic News"

What more do you need to know?

I wasted plenty of time before I realized that Roy was associated with Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra. I assume you were kidding?

(04-26-2010 03:54 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  I respect your request for better sources...
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/news/companies/stemcells/index.htm
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090310055038zzzz.nb/topstory.html

Hopefully this puts more validity behind the claim.

Thanks. I didn't intend to ridicule you, but the folks behind ISIS are another matter...

It seems to me that to ethically justify using embryonic cells, the criteria would rest on whether they provide a benefit that is not otherwise available under reasonable circumstances.

Quote: Unless you can prove that everything an embryonic cell can do could instead be done with adult stem cells, the question of whether adult cells are themselves valuable is almost a side-question. But, it seems prudent to exhaust research on adult stem cells - at least in specific research topics - before you go down the path of using embryonic cells in that topic of research.

Quote: But, I think that option should remain open.

Quote:I understand some of the concerns of anti-abortionists with regards to embryos. I don't understand why organ donation for transplant or research is considered morally valiant whilst use of embryos for essentially the same purpose is considered morally reprehensible.

Quote: There is a substantial ethical leap between considering using embryos that already exist versus the possibility of embryo farms for the express purpose of manufacturing stem cells. Note however, that creating human beings for the express purpose of organ transplant is already done in practice (while in moderation). These human farms are referred to as "families".

(04-26-2010 07:11 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 06:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:  It seems to me that to ethically justify using embryonic cells, the criteria would rest on whether they provide a benefit that is not otherwise available under reasonable circumstances.

It's not obvious to me that even that criterion justifies their use.

(04-26-2010 07:47 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  The Church has always endorsed the use of adult stem cells for medical research, it has only ever been opposed to embryonic stem cell research which involves the destruction of a human life.

(04-26-2010 07:11 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 06:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 03:11 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 03:01 PM)I45owl Wrote:  So, what do you think, Dr. Torch? Can Water Burn?

"Rustum Roy – Distinguished Prof of Materials at Arizona State University and Professor of the Solid State and of Geochemistry at Pennsylvania State University - who followed up the research, and held a public demonstration in September 2007, which was reported in the National Geographic News"

What more do you need to know?

I wasted plenty of time before I realized that Roy was associated with Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra. I assume you were kidding?

(04-26-2010 03:54 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  I respect your request for better sources...
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/news/companies/stemcells/index.htm
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090310055038zzzz.nb/topstory.html

Hopefully this puts more validity behind the claim.

Thanks. I didn't intend to ridicule you, but the folks behind ISIS are another matter...

It seems to me that to ethically justify using embryonic cells, the criteria would rest on whether they provide a benefit that is not otherwise available under reasonable circumstances.

It's not obvious to me that even that criterion justifies their use.

Quote: Unless you can prove that everything an embryonic cell can do could instead be done with adult stem cells, the question of whether adult cells are themselves valuable is almost a side-question. But, it seems prudent to exhaust research on adult stem cells - at least in specific research topics - before you go down the path of using embryonic cells in that topic of research.

Agreed

Quote: But, I think that option should remain open.

Again, that's a pretty serious ethical question.

Quote:I understand some of the concerns of anti-abortionists with regards to embryos. I don't understand why organ donation for transplant or research is considered morally valiant whilst use of embryos for essentially the same purpose is considered morally reprehensible.

It destroys a unique human entity.

Quote: There is a substantial ethical leap between considering using embryos that already exist versus the possibility of embryo farms for the express purpose of manufacturing stem cells. Note however, that creating human beings for the express purpose of organ transplant is already done in practice (while in moderation). These human farms are referred to as "families".

And members of those families aren't destroyed to harvest the organ. Even at that, "savior siblings" do raise ethical questions.

(04-26-2010 07:23 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 07:11 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-26-2010 06:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:  It seems to me that to ethically justify using embryonic cells, the criteria would rest on whether they provide a benefit that is not otherwise available under reasonable circumstances.

It's not obvious to me that even that criterion justifies their use.

But without it, I would concede there is no justification. That's kind of the first step in a decision tree that would allow you to justify there use in treatment.

Quote:In making the decision on ethics, it is also clear to address whether their use can be justified if that is the case. In addressing whether it's acceptable for research using embryonic stem cells, I'd expect the researchers to make the case there there is potential such a benefit.

What you didn't address is that the embryos will be destroyed one way or the other, and they were not created for the purpose of research or treatment. I would argue there is greater net harm to human life (at least to the donor) with organ donation than the correlating hypothetical life-saving treatment provided by embryonic stem cells.

(04-27-2010 07:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  I see both sides of the argument. It's not a new one, heck they even had a Star Trek Voyager episode that dealt with the issue. I am concerned that the approach is to justify questionable practices by citing benefit for other people.

(04-27-2010 11:31 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I presume the church hasn't raised a blanket objection on artificial insemination,