New Method Makes Embryo-Safe Stem Cells

[sabra]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2348308

New Method Makes Embryo-Safe Stem Cells
Biotech Company Reports New Way of Making Stem Cells Without Harming Embryos

NEW YORK Aug 23, 2006 (AP)— In an innovative move, a biotech company has found a new way of making stem cells without destroying embryos, touting it as a way to defuse one of the country's fiercest political and ethical debates.

Some opponents of the research said the method still doesn't satisfy their objections and many stem cell scientists and their supporters called it inefficient and politically wrong-headed.

But a spokeswoman for President Bush, who vetoed legislation last month that would have allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, called it a step in the right direction.

And Robert Lanza, an executive with Advanced Cell Technology, which created the new stem cell lines, said: "This will make it far more difficult to oppose this research."

[Ian David]

1. But if we do that, then Heaven will run out of souls! n/t

[valerief]

2. Cool. It's like embryonic stem cell dermabrasion. n/t

[Vidar]

3. Glad to hear it.

[zreosumgame]

7. fundie christer-cultists are not

after all they figure anyone sick (except themselves of course!) 'deserve it'.

[iverglas]

4. it isn't actually new

What seems to be new is that someone is commercializing it.

http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/114/9/1184

Full article (2004) can be read there, and the bafflegab really must be read to be believed. It has to be one of the best examples of agenda-driven "science" I've ever seen.

J. Clin. Invest. 114:1184-1186 (2004). doi:10.1172/JCI200423065.
Copyright ©2004 by the American Society for Clinical Investigation

Abstract

The creation of human embryonic stem cells through the destruction of a human embryo pits the value of a potential therapeutic tool against that of an early human life. This contest of values has resulted in a polarized debate that neglects areas of common interest and perspective. We suggest that a common ground for pursuing research on human embryonic stem cells can be found by reconsidering the death of the human embryo and by applying to this research the ethical norms of essential organ donation.

What this is, is an non-solution to a non-problem.

From the article linked in the opening post:

Some stem cell researchers complain that the new approach, though it may hold future promise, simply isn't as efficient as their current method of creating stem cells. That procedure involves the destruction of embryos after about five days of development, when they consist of about 100 cells.

Meanwhile, hard-line opponents of stem cell science argue that the technique solves nothing, because even the single cell removed by the new approach could theoretically grow into a full-fledged human. Some also object over the possibility the procedure could harm the embryo in an unknown way.

This next article is available only by subscription, and I have not read it, but the abstract goes like this:

http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/extract/32/1/43
(my emphasis)

Journal of Medical Ethics 2006;32:43-48; doi:10.1136/jme.2005.012203

What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate

K Devolder
... Centre for Environmental Philosophy and Bioethics, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

This paper discusses two proposals to the US President’s Council on Bioethics that try to overcome the issue of killing embryos in embryonic stem (ES) cell research and argues that neither of them can hold good as a compromise solution. The author argues that

(1) the groups of people for which the compromises are intended neither need nor want the two compromises,

(2) the US government and other governments of countries with restrictive regulation on ES cell research have not provided a clear and sound justification to take into account minority views on the protection of human life to such a considerable extent as to constrain the freedom of research in the area of stem cell research, and

(3) the best way to deal with these issues is to accept that many people and most governments adopt a gradualist and variable viewpoint on the human embryo which implies that embryos can be sacrificed for good reasons and to try to find other, less constraining, ways to take into account minority views on the embryo.

We really should never forget what the anti-choice brigade means when it says "compromise". It means: we get what we want, and you get fucked.

[iverglas]

5. btw: dogs & fleas

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=41356

Main Category: Stem Cell Research News
Article Date: 11 Apr 2006 - 0:00am (PDT)

On April 5, 2006, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Phil Gingrey (R-GA) hosted an Embryonic Stem Cell Research briefing for Congressional staff. The briefing presented details about four proposed techniques for deriving embryonic stem cell lines without harming embryos that were outlined in The President's Council on Bioethics "White Paper" released in May 2005. Congressman Bartlett, who has a Masters and a Doctorate in Human Physiology, and Dr. Donald Landry of Columbia University, Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford University, and Father Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., Ph.D. of Providence College presented information about the techniques.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. We have good smart people working

on techniques to do stem cell research that won't offend bigoted idiots while other nations have good smart people working on stem cell research. Anybody see a problem here?

[iverglas]

11. exactly

Just what the authors in the article I quoted were arguing, and in fewer words. ;)

A non-solution to a non-problem.

[p12psicop]

8. Firm makes "ethical" embryo stem cells

See this link

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-08-23T172553Z_01_N23403167_RTRUKOC_0_US-SCIENCE-STEMCELLS.xml&src=082306_2150_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters

Will G-Dub change his mind? Hell no. He's way too arrogant to go back and fix his mistake. Even though the scientists have figured out a way to remove his crappy excuse for not funding what could possibly be the most monumental achievement of this century (finding cures and treatments for a variety of deadly diseases) he's not about to rescind his objection. It's such an utterly stupid ass thing to finally after 6 years decide to veto his own congress on this.

This ass of a president has absolutely no regard for the people of this country. I hope to God he gets a disease like Alzheimer's and looks back with regret that he put his political policies ahead of common sense and the will of the people of the US and the world.

[Warpy]

9. Alzheimer's won't do it

because he'll quickly forget he was the stupid ass who refused to fund the cure, just like Reagan.

Parkinson's would be much better. We already know stem cells can rebuild the substantia nigra, the area of the brain that is destroyed by Parkinson's.

Let him be bedridden and miserable, given a long time with great medical care to think about what he did.

.....nah, he'll just fly off to the far east for the cure he wouldn't let US have.

[CollegeDUer]

10. Bush can screw himself trying to argue his thing now

Enough is enough, allow the practice and fund it well