Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Stem Cell Research

C

capt trance

Super-Earth
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
So i been trollin for a few, and there was some interesting topics that has been discussed. So I figured I would bring up Stem Cell Research. i will go over this in as few points as possible.

1) what is Stem Cell Research? Its when we take Stem Cells from one of three places:
A) Embryo - Which kills the embryo sadly.
B) Umbilical Cord after baby is born - the most pain free way, and easiest, however, provides very little.
C) Bone Marrow - The most painful thing in a world can be a bone marrow transplant, or giving bone marrow. So they say.

What Stem Cells do is, once extracted, they can be frozen and kept safe like any other cell. But whats unique about Stem Cells is that they are the building blocks for development. In other words, Stem Cells are the ones that build the heart, lungs, liver, etc etc in a baby's body. Hence, one you take Stem Cells from an embryo, it dies.

2) What does this mean?
Well it means several things. For one, it might actually cure the incurable. For instance, Diabetes, Some types of cancer, and even nerve endings.

3) How does it work?
Thats where we get to the fun part. Basically, the reason why you can not get a baby tested to see who is the father for the first x amount of months, is because the stem cells work with the blood and the baby to be born. In another sense, the stem cells copy everything from the mother. Now there is DNA testing, in where you look directly at the genes, which is more complicated, and probably more expensive, however, that test is 100% sure. going back to stem cells, the baby uses the stem cells to build it's own body from the mother.

So How us adults can use it is quite simple: If you have diabetes, a doctor could go to your pancreas, cut off a healthy piece, use stem cells to replicate the pancreas, then implant the new one as you take the old one out. Yes, this sounds a lot easier said then done, I know, but thats why its called research. They say they could even go as far as copying someone's nerves system, However, the wiring on that is insane, and that won't be done for years and years to come, regardless if we put stem cell research on the express way.

4) The cons.
Of course there are cons to every pro. But in this particular con, there is really only one main con: Cloning. it is very possible, years down the road, you could clone someone. or someone could "live forever" by getting transplants after transplants. now we as human beings know thats immoral, and should not allow that. Will we still do it? Yea. No one lives by the rules, and if they could live an extra couple of years or so, what do they got to lose?

5) in conclusion, I am for stem cell research, and i am very interested on your idea's. Granted, the speech I prepared for this topic in high school was 20 mins long, and had more detail, but this would be a crash course in this. Also, other countries are doing stem cell research, and we are not. I would hate to see our enemies use it in war, and we don't
 
Titanus Dradonus said:
1) what is Stem Cell Research? Its when we take Stem Cells from one of three places:
A) Embryo - Which kills the embryo sadly.
B) Umbilical Cord after baby is born - the most pain free way, and easiest, however, provides very little.
C) Bone Marrow - The most painful thing in a world can be a bone marrow transplant, or giving bone marrow. So they say.

What Stem Cells do is, once extracted, they can be frozen and kept safe like any other cell. But whats unique about Stem Cells is that they are the building blocks for development. In other words, Stem Cells are the ones that build the heart, lungs, liver, etc etc in a baby's body. Hence, one you take Stem Cells from an embryo, it dies.
Click to expand...

Soooo... You forgot a D option there. Induced pluripotent stem cells. Scientists can reverse engineer--essentially, fuck you proper scientific lexicon I lack--stem cells from human skin cells. So the whole embryo thing is really a moot point. We've been able to manufacture that stuff since 2007. In 2009 a way to induce pluripotent stem cells from adult cells solely by way of proteins was found, which means we can now essentially manufacture stem cells as mutation prone (i.e. not very) as those you would get from an embryo.

Titanus Dradonus said:
4) The cons.
Of course there are cons to every pro. But in this particular con, there is really only one main con: Cloning. it is very possible, years down the road, you could clone someone. or someone could "live forever" by getting transplants after transplants. now we as human beings know thats immoral, and should not allow that. Will we still do it? Yea. No one lives by the rules, and if they could live an extra couple of years or so, what do they got to lose?
Click to expand...

Whoa there, partner, what's wrong with cloning people for organs? All you would need to do is clone them in such a way--given that cloning for the purposes of our conversation is feasible with all the kinks worked out--that they lacked all those parts of the brain that were unnecessary for a body of organs kept in a vat. Namely, no cerebellum and no neocortex. Just leave the brain stem to control autonomic functions. No thought, no emotion, no will; what's wrong about having a floating flesh sac with a face when I need a new liver? Or arm? Or eye? Can you imagine that--a functioning eye transplant. That'd be great!


Titanus Dradonus said:
Also, other countries are doing stem cell research, and we are not. I would hate to see our enemies use it in war, and we don't
Click to expand...

Actually, we are totes doing stem cell research. There's been stem cell research in this country for a long ass time. The most the Bush administration did was limit the stem cell lines that scientists could draw from. Obama, within his first year of office, lifted this restriction with the caveat that scientists pursue ethical means of obtaining stem cells. E.g. full disclosure, induced pluripotent stem cells. The other countries that have the capability to do stem cell research are unlikely to go to war with the USA, assuming that's the country you're referring to. You may have forgotten that half of the world's defense spending is done by the USA. You may have also forgotten that there haven't been a whole lot of countries who throw the first punch when this country goes into war or "global police action" or whathaveyou.

To be quite frank, you mention human cloning for organ transplants as unethical. I think that using genetics as weapons of wars, inflicting pestilence, that is unethical. Biological warfare is bad news bears, dude. How is that a positive justification for stem cell research? "We need to do it first 'cause if we don't then somebody else will make SUPER AIDS and then unleash the SUPER AIDS on our SOLDIERS so we need to make the SUPER AIDS first to unleash on THEIR SOLDIERS first." That is essentially what I got from that.
 
Soooo... You forgot a D option there. Induced pluripotent stem cells. Scientists can reverse engineer--essentially, fuck you proper scientific lexicon I lack--stem cells from human skin cells. So the whole embryo thing is really a moot point. We've been able to manufacture that stuff since 2007. In 2009 a way to induce pluripotent stem cells from adult cells solely by way of proteins was found, which means we can now essentially manufacture stem cells as mutation prone (i.e. not very) as those you would get from an embryo.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, our ability to induce stem cells from somatic cells is imperfect at best. The problem is, although all our cells have the same DNA, modification are made to the proteins attached to that DNA when a cell develops. Think of these as "markers" on the DNA. So although we can make something that behaves like a stem cell in a lot of ways, and can be redifferentiated, sort of, it's not really the same as an embryonic stem cell that's never undergone this kind of nuclear programming.

I mean, if it were possible to reliably and completely revert an adult cell back to an "unmarked" state, we wouldn't be having so much difficulty getting healthy mammalian clones.
 
Titanus Dradonus said:
4) The cons.
Of course there are cons to every pro. But in this particular con, there is really only one main con: Cloning. it is very possible, years down the road, you could clone someone. or someone could "live forever" by getting transplants after transplants. now we as human beings know thats immoral, and should not allow that. Will we still do it? Yea. No one lives by the rules, and if they could live an extra couple of years or so, what do they got to lose.
Click to expand...

I'd like to add that there is another con to this particular procedure, at least in the eyes of some people there is. Many people consider human life to begin at conception, and that the killing of an embryo constitutes the ending of a human life. Now, I am making the assumption that these stem cells are coming from a fertilized egg. If that is not the case then my point is moot. However, if that is the case, there will be people who see it as morally wrong. While I am aware that there are plenty of people who do not share this view, I would say that it is worth taking into consideration the cons that others might find in this process, and not simply what you alone perceive as the cons. Personally, I believe life begins at conception, so I am against embryonic stem cell research. If its possible that the process involving skin cells can be perfected, I would much rather see that method be used.
 
While I disagree about life beginning at conception - I think that a pre-implantation embryo doesn't really have anything resembling human rights in itself - I'm willing to admit that this could open the way for improper treatment of more developed fetuses. But this requires a slippery-slope argument that can be somewhat attenuated if we declare that ONLY pre-implantation embryos can be used for research purposes.
 
Incidentally, the whole "life begins at conception" argument only came to prominence within the past 100 years or so. Before that started getting spread around, the baseline was when you could feel the baby move, the baby was actually alive (supported by scientific and religious writings of the time). So this is one of those times when the ancient world was MORE relaxed and less strictured about things than the modern world.

Even in the modern age, though, the whole "life begins at conception" contingent is a small but incredibly vocal minority. And if that's true, about the beginning of life, then other evidence (such as the fact that miscarriages and foetal deaths may be incredibly more common and prevalent than we have ever thought) means that God must consider life to begin at the first union of egg and sperm so He can kill it with impunity and frequency. More souls for the engines! Muwahahahahahaha!
 
@ zombies galore

I haven't done the research since 2007, so i am behind on it, but yes, i realized obama did release the restriction. I did not know about the fourth way at the time. The forth way intrigues me very much, and it makes sense. Skin cells grow a lot, and it would make sense that they would use a stem cell like thing to regrow the skin.

Also, I was up for cloning organs, just not cloning people. In other words, I would not want obama to clone himself and run for president again. The organ cloning would have save half my family from diabetes, and my grandfather from lung cancer. So i am for organ cloning, not people cloning. sorry for the miss-hap

and I did not think about it in that sense of warfare, however, it could be used in that way. I meant in the medical field, where a soldier would get shot, and a medic would just run over to him, take the bullet out if possible, then inject stem cells to close up the wound. They have been trying to do that for quite some time now.

I also know that noone will throw the first punch. However, I think korea or china will start the next world war [[i woulda sworn they were going too some years back]] or they will definitely take part in it, and i don't think it would be in america's favor. but thats a different debate.


@ my name is nothing.
I was not referring to the embryo. However, going to the embryo, even though I am religious, I do not believe that life started at conception. Once it started to breathe, and form a body, is when i think it is life.
 
i didnt say we were at a disadvantage. yet. If someone militarized stem cell research, before us, then yes i would say that, unless we came up with a way to defend against it. i also did not state we were the defender in biowarfare o_O unless your not talking to me lol
 
Titanus Dradonus said:
Also, other countries are doing stem cell research, and we are not. I would hate to see our enemies use it in war, and we don't
Click to expand...

That strongly implies the USA is at a disadvantage.

I would like to say that, as a sidenote, China is not likely to start a hot war with the USA. The country makes a lot of money off us.
 
yes, but we also owe a lot of money to them. China is self sufficient enough to where if something or someone wiped us off the earth, they would survive. Even though we buy a lot of china's stuff, they could just sell it else where, cheaper. There economy might slow down, but they will still be the third best economy
 
That makes literally no sense. Debt is only worth something if you are not in a state of war with the country that owes you. You think that if you were actively at war with someone else they would give two shits about their debts to you? The reason China has been so successful is because they peg their currency to the dollar, putting them in a position to provide super cheap production for their exports to this country and others, but mostly this country, being the world's main consumer. For China going to war with the US would be the same as killing the golden goose.

China imports a shit ton of food. They are not self-sufficient. They have a truly gigantic population that needs to be supported with international trade. Starting a war with one of the members of the UN security council would be absurd. To have it be a legal war, internationally, it would have to be approved by the UN. The US oversteps this because this country is a military powerhouse unlike anything else on Earth with a massive economy that pulls the strings and trades favors with a variety, read as: the majority, of other countries. China cannot afford to step so loosely as the US does politically.

For China to start war with the US would be that country shooting themselves in the foot. It'd be like bringing a blunt knife to a gun fight. Fighting the US like David versus a Goliath in full plate with an M4. It is ridiculous.
 
true, but i was talking about a world war, where they would have back up. Yes, if it was just the US versus China, we would win. but again, this is a different subject, and the conflict from years ago died down. I dont think a world war would happen anytime soon, unless we fuck up politically, again.
 
It's clear that some of us don't really understand the sheer volume of goods we consume, and food that China imports. If we stopped buying China's goods, half their economy would collapse immediately, as vast swaths of their factories would close down. China is ALREADY supplying cheap goods to the entire world, there's not really many more customers to be had.

And you're assuming China has allies. They're on poor terms, militarily (though good terms, economically) with most of the countries around them. Who are they going to sucker into attacking the US? They'd be better off invading Japan. Or Australia.

And you do know that most of China is essentially at a medieval level of technology and culture. And they've got their own problems: did you know all the bees in China died off, along with many of the other insects, to the point that Chinese farmers have to pollinate their crops literally by hand?

I also find your trust that America isn't already a forerunner in biological weapons, stem cells or no, very charming and enviously innocent.
 
to be honest, i probably dont. I am only 20, and i am just now learning Macro Economics, and I am having a hard time swallowing it. it could be i am "Young, Dumb, and full of Cum" and just book smart. I do not know much of china's problems. nor do i know anything about america's black ops. All I know is that i researched stem cells, and i was completely for it. I did not want to argue about politics and military, becuase I do not know much about them in other countries. or even in our own.
 
As far as biotechnology goes, stem cell research is on the low end of the "weaponizable" scale. I can see weaponizing viruses or bacteria or fungi... but stem cells? Even as a way of treating infections inflicted by bioweapons, stem cells aren't likely to be the way to go.
 
no, but stem cless can replace the organ if all else fails. that why i am so for it, the fact that half of my family could get better lives because of this technology. My grandfather quite smoking, and got lung cancer ten years later. My family has been excersing[spell check aint picking up the word i murdered it so bad.]] and dieting, yet they still got diabetes. people who can prove themselves that deserve the product should get it in my case, and that why i am for it. It will also probably reduce the lives in war. How we can weaponize it, is by giving it to injured soldiers that need to seal up a bullet wound quick, and be 100% effect again on the battle field. think about the fact the not only half of the soldiers would have not died in iraq, but well more than half would no be injured, or be put on medical leave. Unless the broke a bone or something, that would almost be like the brain, it is irreplaceable.
 
I've been following this thread for quite a bit and am going to speak up a little now. Ok. Stem cells. First, let me say that, as an ex-researcher in the field of cell/molecular biology, we are FAR from a point where injecting stem cells will heal up anything. So far from it's absolutely RIDICULOUS! Hell, we don't even really have the understanding of how or why they differentiate as they do. Furthermore, those that we HAVE figured out? There are VERY specific things that need to be present in order for differentiation to occur. PROPERLY. Key word.... PROPERLY. Most cases of differentiation occur due to some sort of mechanical force, be it a steady or cyclic pressure. Others are chemical, such as stimulation change via various signaling pathways. And still others are a combination of such things. But this segues into an area known as mechanotransduction and this field is still very new as far as research goes. And is more prominently used, at present anyway, with cell types that are very well characterized and thus established.

Personally, unless something radical is discovered in the area of stem cell research, I do not think we'll ever be able to just inject stem cells and then.... hocus pocus! New organ. No. I see it more that we have stem cells, we expose them to the appropriate stimuli and then proceed to begin organ growth in a 'dish', for lack of a better term. Once things get underway, then perhaps find a way to place the newly growing organ into a recipient.

As far as bio-weaponry is concerned. I do not see stem cells even remotely going there. It would be inefficient at best. The best way to go is actually a virus. High growth rate, easily transmittable. Of course, the drawbacks are high mutation and the fact that they can get out of control if not kept in check. And keeping any virus in check is not an easy task. At all.
 
Ok. Stem cells. First, let me say that, as an ex-researcher in the field of cell/molecular biology, we are FAR from a point where injecting stem cells will heal up anything.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the injection of sanity. That said, I'd argue that there's at least one problem we have a shot at treating.

Stem-cell injections for type 1 diabetes are workable. By injecting cells that can differentiate into beta cells, it should be possible to generate a stable population in the body. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of insulin resistance in type 2 diabetics, but it's something.

And while talk of growing entire organs is science fiction for now, replacing damaged tissue seems more plausible, and that would be valuable enough in itself. Three words: "Artificial bone marrow."
 
Hehe! You're welcome, I'm sure. XD

And I agree with you, there are probably a few instances where injection may be plausible at some point. But even still, we're far from having such technology perfected. And I agree that them being useful for tissue damage is a possibility. But again, we'll have to find a way to cause them to differentiate appropriately. From my knowledge of them, mere exposure to specific cell lines and the like will not cause differentiation. I think the process needs to be triggered prior to injection. The key then, is knowing the appropriate stimuli and finding a way to induce it in such a way that it's quick and easy. That's probably where the limiting factor truly is as far as the whole 'injection' concept goes.

Like I said, I have my thoughts. BUT... as a researcher, I never discount possibility. I'd be very foolish to dismiss anything. However, some things, at least at present, just make no sense. Until certain things are discovered and new technologies found, we are where we are. XD

But, I do also see them being useful down the line for the things previously mentioned. Just not quite in the hocus pocus way some people seem to think they can be used for. Biology is so much more complex than that.
 
Well, the other possibility, and probably the sounder one, is to differentiate them outside the body using specific cues, which has been done successfully - and then put them in place.

... in fact, I can't really think of any condition where in situ differentiation would make sense, unless it were for tissue that absolutely needed to be shaped/differentiated by local cues.
 
Well, that's more or less what I was getting at in my first post. And again in my second. Differentiation needs to be triggered before hand. Mere exposure will do nothing. But even then, if differentiation occurs, who's to say that the cells will actually repair and/or regrow anything. Something will need to aid or signal them to actually do the repairing, etc. which brings in a whole other list of issues all together. Ah... gotta love the complexity that is biology. I do hope someday we get to a point where such thing is childsplay. But I do think we're a long way off. Especially since we don't even fully understand the whys and hows of differentiation into specific cell lines in the first place. But, I'm also approaching such things from an engineering perspective as opposed to a pure biologist's perspective. So, who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom