Blind? No prob, we have stem cells...

[atomweaver]

From The Sunday Times

April 19, 2009
Blind to be cured with stem cells

Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor
BRITISH scientists have developed the world’s first stem cell therapy to cure the most common cause of blindness. Surgeons predict it will become a routine, one-hour procedure that will be generally available in six or seven years’ time.
The treatment involves replacing a layer of degenerated cells with new ones created from embryonic stem cells. It was pioneered by scientists and surgeons from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London and Moorfields eye hospital.


Article continues

 

[Ectezus]

One big hooray for stem cells.
I wonder what's next on the list.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Excellent stuff. Hopefully now that we in the USA have a President who is more pro-science, we can get such innovations invented here too.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Wonderful!

 

[OldManAnon]

And to think, that discovery might have come sooner if they'd had US research teams to collaborate with...

But yeah, the US would rather burn embryos then try and give blind people their sight back.

 

[Ectezus]

And to think, that discovery might have come sooner if they'd had US research teams to collaborate with...

But yeah, the US would rather burn embryos then try and give blind people their sight back.

Now now, lets stay positive. We have at least 3-4 more years, hopefully 7-8, before Sarah Palin gets elected and the rapture comes.

 

[Cabal]

From The Sunday Times

April 19, 2009
Blind to be cured with stem cells

Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor
BRITISH scientists have developed the world’s first stem cell therapy to cure the most common cause of blindness. Surgeons predict it will become a routine, one-hour procedure that will be generally available in six or seven years’ time.
The treatment involves replacing a layer of degenerated cells with new ones created from embryonic stem cells. It was pioneered by scientists and surgeons from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London and Moorfields eye hospital.


Article continues

Aw, ya beat meh to it.

But yes, great article indeed. And as long as leftover IVF embryos are just going to be chucked out, why not help a few people out.

 

[Naraoia]

I love how we basically live in a sci-fi.

 

[Jester4kicks]

I love how we basically live in a sci-fi.

Isn't it cool?! We may not have flying cars (yet), but modern medicine is simply amazing.

My old roommate's grandfather went in for knee-replacement surgery, and they had him up and walking around later that same afternoon.

Anyway... score a big one for science!!

 

[Ectezus]

Anyway... score a big one for science!!

Agreed.
And I dare to make the following statement as well

In a world where religion didn't benefit from atheist scienctists there would not be any religion left.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Agreed.
And I dare to make the following statement as well

In a world where religion didn't benefit from atheist scienctists there would not be any religion left.

Meh, partly true.

If there's one thing I have learned from my relatively-short life... it's that stupid people have a remarkable ability to survive, continue being stupid, and produce stupid offspring.

(Referring to stupid people in general, not necessarily anyone on this forum in particular. Let's face it, we all know at least one stupid person.)

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? Stupid people watch that movie and laugh because it's funny. Intelligent people watch that movie and cry because it's true.

 

[Hespera]

I'm very pro stem cell research. It helps people. When you help people you can't go wrong. Then again I have no religious opposition to the use of embryos for the task so it only make sense to me. I understand the religious right's opposition to this. However, one thing I always say to someone is that those embryos that they are using from abortions were going to be thrown out anyway. They are aborted regardless so might as well do something with them other than waste them. I don't have a problem with women getting pregnant to sell their embryos for this purpose because again I have no religious opposition. Either way it's a personal choice. If someone doesn't agree with it they don't have to give their embryo to science and they also don't have to accept embryonic transplants for themselves or a loved one. There's no reason to hinder anyone elses access to this wonderful science.

I am not a member of the religious right. They dont "own' this issue. You dont, as I have so often tried to tell some self righteous christians, have to be religious to have a sense of morality.

The thing is, a human being is a human being right from the moment of conception.

For a woman to get pregnant and then abort / sell the embryo is so profoundly immoral that I can only think a total psycho would do it.

Its not a "personal" choice to kill someone and sell the remains.

it is true that an embryo that was aborted would be thrown away, and it is tempting to go from there to say, well, so its ok to use it for good instead.

The thing is that very few abortions can be justified for other than personal convenience reasons.



I dont see the "might as well use the embryo" argument as much better than if some Nazis decided their victims made good fertilizer.

 

[OldManAnon]

Hespera - I have a question. Most of the embryos aren't from aborted fetuses, they're from IVF. To make IVF practical a lot of extras must be inseminated artificially before they're implanted, and thus there are usually a large number of 'extras'.

There's a tiny adoption market for the left over embryos, but nowhere near enough to fill demand. Those embryos have two options,

a) Incinerate
b) Use in embryonic testing.

Given that these are both going to be destroyed, how can one ethically not use them to help alleviate human suffering.

 

[Naraoia]

I am not a member of the religious right. They dont "own' this issue. You dont, as I have so often tried to tell some self righteous christians, have to be religious to have a sense of morality.

And having a sense of morality isn't a function of your views on when a lump of cells starts being "human"

The thing is, a human being is a human being right from the moment of conception.

So everyone in the IVF industry (including the patients) is a murderer or consenter to murder. Do you agree?

And, by the way, so is every woman using an IUD. Part of the mechanism of IUDs is that they prevent the implantation of the embryo.



These embryos are balls of cells. They are about as human as a few skin cells in culture; the only difference is that they could become human if implanted in a womb (but for how long will that remain a difference?). They don't know anything, they don't even feel anything until their nervous system is sufficiently developed. At the stage when they're injected into the would-be mother, they don't even have much of a structure, let alone a nervous system. For me, calling them "human" and declaring discarding them or using them for research murder is a bit of a stretch.

I sometimes wonder how deeply most people think about their own moral views. For some reason I have this feeling that many of us wouldn't be so certain about our convictions if we thought through them more thoroughly.

(Maybe the reason is that I find it very difficult to have clear-cut views of any controversial issue I bother to think about )

 

[FedererFan]

I love this kind of stuff! Just imagine how much farther along we'd be if it weren't for the Church stifling scientific exploration since Copernicus!

 

[Hespera]

to Nar, Dry and Drek-

I wont attempt to argue with any of the points any of you made. I understand your ideas, i ahve thought them myself, and in many ways i agree with them. I dont care for a debate on this, and i think a pro-con abortion debate is about as rancid a thing to get into as can be found.

I said how i see it, largely in response to "pro life" being presented as a religious right thing, which to me it certainly isnt. Whatever you do, dont maroon me with some religoius-right people; we would not be friends.

From a PRACTICAL point of view, abortion, stem cell etc is all very sensible, and involves much social good. From a MORAL point of view, its not anywhere so simple.

There is no 'bright line" distinction between when a person is ("just") a lump of cells, and when that person, uh, human? It is arbitrary, and I dont like it. To me, a fertilized egg is human. Not to be made lightly, not to be discareded or used as if it is a herring.

i guess its better to use an IUD and all that implies than to deal with the consequences of not using birth control. As a practical matter.

Im very uncomforrable with preferance for practicality over morality that the abortion business, fertility clinics, and stem cell research involves.

Its very sad. I hope some day human society will find itself way way beyond this, and perhaps they will look back at how we dealt with these issues, and shudder.

 

[Naraoia]

Hespera, I acknowledge your point of view and I don't want to get into a debate either. *shudders*

I completely agree with some things you wrote. Yes, when that lump of cells becomes human is a matter of opinion. And of course being pro-life isn't the privilege of one religious/political group.

I don't think IVF, abortion and stem cell research are a issues of practicality so much as issues of moral trade-off. After all, the embryos aren't the only humans involved, and in the case of stem cell research, they aren't the only lives to be saved or discarded either. Plus there are those cases where the child would be ill for life and die early if not aborted. No free lunch, as they say, and no pure white decisions.

To conclude this brief non-debate: as you said, it's not anywhere near simple.

 

[Hespera]

thanks Nar and wild horses wont drag me into further discussion on this one