Adult Stem Cell Research: Stem cells used for 'natural' boob jobs

[CAnnoneer]

venture capital would be climbing all over it to get in on the money when a treatment arises. 

Not necessarily. If gov outlaws fed support for certain research, who is to say they won't outlaw the research itself and its fruits? The US is the single biggest pharmaceutical market. If your product is suddenly denied it, you will be hurting real bad.

[Matthew Carberry]

venture capital would be climbing all over it to get in on the money when a treatment arises. 

Not necessarily. If gov outlaws fed support for certain research, who is to say they won't outlaw the research itself and its fruits? The US is the single biggest pharmaceutical market. If your product is suddenly denied it, you will be hurting real bad.

Suddenly denied it?     It's been denied for years. 

The investors in the US and worldwide are not "holding back" strictly due to a lack of US tax funding.  The cell lines being used in this country are legal and no move at all has been made to change that, even by the Rep. Congress and Pres. who weren't supporters.  The opnly restrictions are no more US gov. sanctioned lines and no tax dollars for domestic research.  There is similar research going on worldwide with no such strictures and that research isn't being bought into either.  The investors view it, correctly thus far, as a dry hole, not 'politically risky'. 

Adult stem cell research has shown results everywhere it's being researched, embryonic has yet to deliver one solid gain anywhere, just lots of "but, but, we're kinda showing promise, please give us Carebear's money to pay our Lexus leases".

[CAnnoneer]

Come on, fundamentally you object to it on ethical grounds, not on practical/utilitarian ones. If suddenly tomorrow hESC research cured 1,000 quadroplegics, I bet you would still object to it.

Also, if there is no gov funding for research in it now, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that nothing practical will come out of the field. Also, the Bush lines are essentially unusable. Don't take my word on it, dig a little yourself and talk to stem cell researchers.

[Perd Hapley]

Come on, fundamentally you object to it on ethical grounds,

One would hope so. 

In another thread, you acknowledged that the unborn might be human persons with rights.  But you would rather favor the "right" of pregnant women to be un-pregnant.  Now it appears you have found that the handicapped or ill have a right to cures from cells that don't even belong to them.  What happened to those rights you thought the embryos might have?  Don't really care, do you? 

[Matthew Carberry]

Come on, fundamentally you object to it on ethical grounds, not on practical/utilitarian ones. If suddenly tomorrow hESC research cured 1,000 quadroplegics, I bet you would still object to it.

Also, if there is no gov funding for research in it now, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that nothing practical will come out of the field. Also, the Bush lines are essentially unusable. Don't take my word on it, dig a little yourself and talk to stem cell researchers.

Wrongo, I object on ethical (questions about embryos) AND practical (lack of any achievement thus far) and libertarian (gov. shouldn't be involved either way, certainly not with tax dollars for research or to subsidize something as controversial as using viable embryos).  But, just as I am willing to bend my personal beliefs to how I believe the Constitution is best interpreted on the abortion issue, I would be willing to bend on embryonic stem cell research.

BUT IT DOESN"T WORK. 

Talk to US scientists and sure they'll cry you a river about coulda/shoulda/woulda but the fact remains they have been free to do private research for a dog's age and haven't produced a single thing except cries for more taxpayer funded research dollars. 

If big pharma or venture capital thought there was real promise in actually producing a marketable product they'd take the research offshore with other stem cell lines, where research is ALREADY GOING ON FREE OF CONSTRAINT, or invest in that existing ongoing research.  They aren't.  Guess why.  There have been no real gains out there either. 

If there was any evidence from any researchers anywhere in the world that there was more than vague "promise" we'd hear about it.  But we don't, all we hear foreign and domestic is "more money" "more lines" "more money" without anything concrete to show after all this time.

Meanwhile, adult stem cell research neatly sidesteps any health (bodily rejection) and ethical (it's your own cells)issues and seems to be producing gains day after day.  I believe in backing a winner (though still not with tax dollars).  The promise of effective natural breast enhancement not only points to future, more significant healthwise, 'gains' (heh) but also provides a medium where such future research draws the investment it needs to continue without any tax dollars involved.

Win, win, win.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

I'm with Carebear on this one.

[valencia]

Not just bigger, but more ergonomic:  She could have a second pair grow out the back, to even out the strain on the spine.  That and to make big hugs even better!   

I've wondered why women don't have breasts that come closer to the side- it would make nursing at night so much easier.

[Matthew Carberry]

Not just bigger, but more ergonomic:  She could have a second pair grow out the back, to even out the strain on the spine.  That and to make big hugs even better!   

I've wondered why women don't have breasts that come closer to the side- it would make nursing at night so much easier.

Doesn't that presuppose that sleeping on your back is the "right" way? Whether it's evolution or ID, it seems to me sleeping curled up is more "natural" for our design and that puts everything right where the baby next to you needs it.  Of course the other hominid's kids are born a little more capable than ours and have prehensile toes to hang onto mom's fur with in front too.

All in all, I'll go with the smooth-skinned non-prehensile inconvenience. 

[roo_ster]

Also, if there is no gov funding for research in it now, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that nothing practical will come out of the field.

That is an awfully odd line to hear from someone who espouses libertarian views. "Gov't is the only one professional enough in this room to fund research...BANG!"

Usually, it the other way 'round: Gov't is a poor picker of winners, be it chip manufacturing, pharmeceuticals, or what-have-you.

Come on, fundamentally you object to it on ethical grounds, not on practical/utilitarian ones.

I think this "question" is best directed back at its author, with it being ASC research.

[CAnnoneer]

In another thread, you acknowledged that the unborn might be human persons with rights.  But you would rather favor the "right" of pregnant women to be un-pregnant.  Now it appears you have found that the handicapped or ill have a right to cures from cells that don't even belong to them.  What happened to those rights you thought the embryos might have?  Don't really care, do you? 

Come on, fistful, I know this is a very emotional issue for you but don't let that fog up your logic. There is no inconsistency in my position.

I support the rights of women to their bodies and I also support the use of human cells that would otherwise be thrown away, to help cure the sick. I do not know for certain that a blastocyst has person rights, but I do know that the woman has voluntarily relinquished her property right over the blastocyst. If you throw something down the drain and another person finds use for it, does he violate your rights by using it? Btw, do you know that the city recycles your refuse and makes money off of it? Have you filed a suit against them to reimburse you?

Something that you might also want to consider is that in-vitro fertilization produces many fertilized eggs, of which only a quarter are considered A-grade and put back inside the hopeful mother. The rest are abnormal to a varying extent and so are NEVER meant for implantation. Something to think about.

[Perd Hapley]

Come on, fistful, I know this is a very emotional issue for you but don't let that fog up your logic.

You seem to say that to me a lot.  Is it because you presume that I'm some over-heated reactionary?  Or is it because you think you can discredit my posts by dismissing them as raw anger or something?

There is no inconsistency in my position.

There certainly is.  You have acknowledged that you don't know whether embryos have rights.  You have failed to show they do not have the same rights as other human creatures.  Yet, despite the possibility of that right to live, which you acknowledge, you will gladly allow someone else to murder them, even though the supposed conflict with the rights of the mother is not an issue.  So can you show that embryo humans do not have the rights of other humans, or will you just admit that you don't care? 

Btw, do you know that the city recycles your refuse and makes money off of it? Have you filed a suit against them to reimburse you?

See, now this is more straightforward.  Humans in embryo stage are just trash to you.  Even though you have no excuse not to understand that they are as human as you are.  You do have some kind of scientific training, do you not?

Something that you might also want to consider is that in-vitro fertilization produces many fertilized eggs, of which only a quarter are considered A-grade and put back inside the hopeful mother. The rest are abnormal to a varying extent and so are NEVER meant for implantation. Something to think about.

Do you mean that infertile people who want to have children are actually having multiple children produced in a lab and then letting most of them sit in storage or be thrown away?  Yes, I have considered that, and I am opposed to those sorts of things.  The desire to have children doesn't outweigh the gravity of neglect or murder of "extra" children.  There are plenty of "unwanted" children for such infertile people to adopt.  If they weren't being killed in abortuaries, that is. 

[MechAg94]

Isn't embryonic stem cell research still completely unregulated in the US as long as you are using private funding?  The limits are based on using federal funding. 


Contrary to popular belief, advancement in the modern age is possible without govt funding.

[Matthew Carberry]

Isn't embryonic stem cell research still completely unregulated in the US as long as you are using private funding?  The limits are based on using federal funding. 


Contrary to popular belief, advancement in the modern age is possible without govt funding.

Not quite unregulated.

The government is also limiting research to several existing embryonic genetic lines.  No more embryos are allowed to be destroyed to gain new genetic material to work with.  That is a complaint by US researchers and is based on this administration's ethical beliefs.  In theory I believe Congress could override that decision, but the cowards won't.  It's far easier to point fingers at the administration as "medieval and extremist" rather than take the political heat to allow more human embryos to be actively destroyed.

This is in essence the same discussion as abortion.  If embryo's aren't "human" yet and don't have "human rights", and the couple who produced the embryos wants to give them to science or abort them or do anything else they want to with them, in theory those embryos are simply their property and they should be allowed to do so.

But, if embryo's are "human" from conception and do possess rights of their own, then they can no more be donated to science to be destroyed than one could donate a child of 10 for the same purpose.

This is the key issue in any question involving embryos.  Where is the line of "humanity" drawn.  It's going back and forth on the theocrat/neocon thread AND DOESN"T NEED TO BE REPEATED HERE. (I'm looking at both of you CAnnon and fistful )

However, as embryonic research with any number of additional genetic lines is ongoing outside the US, saying that one nation's ban on new lines for research seriously hampers overall research is a red herring and simply an excuse for scientists to freeload off your tax dollars.  If US scientists can get the new lines approved, that means the funding issue should bootleg along as the underlying moral controversy will have been resolved in the researcher's favor.

[cordex]

*  Adult stem cells have produced several viable treatments and embryonic has produced bupkis.

So... we should give up on all areas of scientific research that have not yet produced mass-marketable results?  Goodbye, civilization.

Og and Ur are trying to make that bright, hot stuff that happens after lightning hits a dry tree.  You see that when Og smacks certain stones together he gets a bunch of little bright, hot things that go away quickly.  Ur, on the other hand, spends his time smacking his rock into a puddle which produces just little bits of water.  Even with no ethical considerations whatsoever, would you back Og or Ur?

I don't think it is about rejecting all research that is not immediately productive at all.  It is about choosing the right path of development.  Today we know that Ur wasn't completely wrong - if you break water apart you get hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen can burn nicely.  The point is that Ur and his descendants can smack water with rocks all day long and only get wet while Og could have a roaring fire by nightfall.  We're not going to have hydrogen-powered cars if we stop at smacking rocks together, but we're not going to have them any faster if we just spend our time throwing rocks in a pond either.

Embryonic stem cell research may some day be the panacea that it is often touted to be.  Who knows, maybe we'll eventually replace first-aid kits with a tube of stabilized, universal stem cells that you can just squeeze onto any wound for near instantaneous healing.  I'm no expert, but it is my guess that figuring out how to grow new, plug-and-play organs from extra-chunky embryo paste would be easier to do if we had already figured out how to manipulate cells from a patient's own body.

Just for my own edification, Tyme, what is the claim made of BabyBits (tm) brand stem cells that makes them superior to adult stem cells?  Are we just playing with them because we had a metric boatload on hand, or are they in some way superior to adult stem cells?

[Gewehr98]

My ex-wife was a 44D before reduction surgery.  She was in constant pain prior to that surgery.  So yes, there is such a thing as "too much".

That said, anyone else getting tired of the too easy and too often made Rosie/Hillary jokes?  Not trying to slam ya Hank but they aren't really "funny" or clever anymore, they're just obvious insults and everyone here agrees that we don't like those two.  What's the point anymore?

I dunno, I think jokes at the expense of Rosie and Hillary are still pretty darned funny.  Then again, in my book, if at least one person laughs, it's funny.  Were I to subtract "Rosie" or "Hillary" from the joke and insert "Carebear", it just wouldn't work as well, and maybe not even garner the one mandatory laugh required to label the joke as genuinely funny. 

[CAnnoneer]

You seem to say that to me a lot.  Is it because you presume that I'm some over-heated reactionary?  Or is it because you think you can discredit my posts by dismissing them as raw anger or something?

The tone of your posts leaves little doubt as to your emotional state. I don't need to portray you as anything to refute your points logically. On the contrary, I often seem to be the target of exactly such silly tactics.

So can you show that embryo humans do not have the rights of other humans, or will you just admit that you don't care?

I do not need to show anything to stop myself from violating other people's rights. When uncertain about rights, I prefer to be passive. The anti-abortion side has not shown the fetus has rights, instead they assume so and based upon that, they work diligently at brutal violation of the established individual rights of women over the latter's own bodies. I am convinced that my position is far more reasonable, pragmatic, and principled.

  Humans in embryo stage are just trash to you. 

Like it or not, fertilized eggs in in-vitro clinics are substandard biomaterial leftovers. Legally, they are treated as such. What do you suggest we as a society do with them?

Even though you have no excuse not to understand that they are as human as you are. You do have some kind of scientific training, do you not?

This is the kind of pointless emotional personal attack I am talking about. If you cared to process my previous posts, including on other threads, you'd see there is no contradition. Instead, you imply there is something wrong with my training, just as jtfuser did. Very silly.

Do you mean that infertile people who want to have children are actually having multiple children produced in a lab and then letting most of them sit in storage or be thrown away?  Yes, I have considered that, and I am opposed to those sorts of things. 

Great. So now you want to limit the right of people to have biological children. Any other rights you would like to attack based on your assumptions concerning fetal rights?

Btw, I have friends that married very late and had enormous amount of trouble getting pregnant. Eventually, they went through in-vitro and now have a beautiful very smart 14-year-old daughter. You'd have prevented her from being, yet you attack my position on fetuses. How very curious.

[m1911owner]

That said, anyone else getting tired of the too easy and too often made Rosie/Hillary jokes?

Wow!  What did I miss?  What's going on between Rosie and Hillary?  Did Hillary finally "come out" as a lesbian?  With Rosie???!  I always thought she had better taste than that.

[MechAg94]

Carebear:  That additional limitation is attached to federal research funding correct?  Not law that is can't be done privately.

[CAnnoneer]

That is an awfully odd line to hear from someone who espouses libertarian views. "Gov't is the only one professional enough in this room to fund research...BANG!"

There is nothing odd if you look at it more carefully. While I would like a society in which everybody stays out of everybody else's way, the current reality is as is. We have a gov which we can use cleverly or we can use foolishly. Gov funds research that ultimately generates new industries, technological advancement, and prosperity, as well as supports our national security. This has been proven over and over again. Gov recoups the investment by taxation of the respective new industries as well as by the indirect savings from what it would otherwise be forced to pay to unemployment and social costs. Like it or not, the only thing in the gov budget that produces a tangible fiscal return (other than infrastructure, and the military in some sense) is science. The rest of it is pork, bureaucracy ("cost of government"), and illegal entitlements.

Usually, it the other way 'round: Gov't is a poor picker of winners, be it chip manufacturing, pharmeceuticals, or what-have-you.

Again wrong, if you look more closely. Gov funds virtually all of fundamental research, which is expensive, long-term, and high-risk yet critical for long-term success. Industry concentrates on applied research, which mostly is a massive but ultimately straightforward short-term optimization. Thus the gov takes the harder but necessary bets, and so it appears it is "a poor picker". Also, the gov ROI is hidden in tax revenue, while XYZbiotech can post record earnings and associate them with a particular drug. Finally, a lot of industrial "research" success was essentially bankrolled by gov through preceding successful fundamental or applied research in academia.

Essentially, in terms of a mining analogy, the gov does virtually all the prospecting, while industry moves to exploit only the already identified deposits. Thus it would be unfair/inaccurate to say that industry has a much better "nose" for it than the gov.

I think this "question" is best directed back at its author, with it being ASC research.

I thought it was clear that the "it" was hESCR and the comment was directed at carebear.

[Matthew Carberry]

Carebear:  That additional limitation is attached to federal research funding correct?  Not law that is can't be done privately.

Preface - I've been drinking wine, I'm a salesman in the real estate industry, I drink with realtors and those guys are all alki's.

...so I can't find a clean cite.  I may even be wrong and in fact all private is unrestricted except for funding (which Pres. Clinton first cut off BTW).  Which would cut the only remaining leg out from under the "the government should fund it argument" (heh, I bring balance to the Force  )

Check out wiki, I can find it drunk, looks pretty thorough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy

NO, count it, NO results anywhere in the world in at least a decade. 

Regardless of any wishful thinking on the part of researchers CAnnon, adult cells are the only rational, libertarian game in town.  Embryonic cells create problems even before not producing any results, ever.

[Strings]

>Were I to subtract "Rosie" or "Hillary" from the joke and insert "Carebear", it just wouldn't work as well, and maybe not even garner the one mandatory laugh required to label the joke as genuinely funny.<

wait a sec... look at his avatar. That's funny all alone... :neener:


 Ignoring any "abortion" arguements, I have to agree with cordex: working with cells from the subjects own body first makes FAR more sense than working with foreign tissue...

 I've got a friend who had a kidney transplant: his brother donated. LOTS of expenditure for anti-rejection drugs, for the rest of his life. Had he tried a kidney grown from ESCs, he'd have the same problem. Had he tried one done via his own ASCs, there wouldn't likely be the issue. So let's worry about harvesting lil' junior for "building blocks" after we've perfected working with the easier ones...

[Matthew Carberry]

>Were I to subtract "Rosie" or "Hillary" from the joke and insert "Carebear", it just wouldn't work as well, and maybe not even garner the one mandatory laugh required to label the joke as genuinely funny.<

wait a sec... look at his avatar. That's funny all alone... :neener:


 Ignoring any "abortion" arguements, I have to agree with cordex: working with cells from the subjects own body first makes FAR more sense than working with foreign tissue...

 I've got a friend who had a kidney transplant: his brother donated. LOTS of expenditure for anti-rejection drugs, for the rest of his life. Had he tried a kidney grown from ESCs, he'd have the same problem. Had he tried one done via his own ASCs, there wouldn't likely be the issue. So let's worry about harvesting lil' junior for "building blocks" after we've perfected working with the easier ones...

This from a guy with a  beautiful wife and bo staff skills and....  wait, those aren't insults.

Crap.

Touche Mr. Rose. 

[MechAg94]

Yeah, figuring out some sort of regeneration methods with your own cells would be much more useful IMHO.

[cordex]

CAnnoneer, tell us again about which libertarian principles that you do actually support.  Obviously you've got no love for a small government or low taxes.  Is it just the freedom of sex, guns and drugs that you support?  I'm not being critical of those freedoms, mind you, just that you seem to be all over ideas like big government, massive bureaucracies deciding what research to fund, using taxes to fund said research (based on the idea that the government knows better what kind of research to fund than individuals or private companies) and so forth.  Your excuse plays out to be something like: "Hey, we've already got big government, might as well use it for what I like!"  You actually sound like the Republicans did when they were in control of the House, Senate and Presidency.

[CAnnoneer]

cordex,

There is no contradiction in my position. It is simply the difference between ideals and reality. We are all grownups (I assume) and we know how the world works (I hope).

While I like most libertarian ideals (small gov, low taxes, personal responsibility, gun freedom), I also recognize that most of them have no chance of being implemented under the current sociopolitical conditions, while some are utterly unpracticeable considering the state of the world (e.g. "open borders").

What I would support in terms of practicalities is a slow cultural and political shift towards libertarianism, if at all possible. That would take many decades to accomplish and some of it will essentially involve waiting for the natural passing of certain age groups (e.g. baby boomers before medicare can be killed, and hippie gen before multicultural liberalism can be forgotten). And even then, I give it a 20% chance of any success, because we all know there are powerful economic and political groups that push the US in exactly the opposite direction.

Meanwhile, we have to work within the system and do as best we can. That means opposing stupid political moves, liberals, socialists, and dumb spending, while supporting conservatives, good stewardship of USS America, and spending that makes our economy and country stronger.

Finally, I would point out that "pure" libertarians are marginalizing themselves and effectively helping their enemies by refusing to take more practical short-term positions and join conservatives in damage control and reconstruction of our ship. Certainly, the purists can turn up their noses at pragmaticists like myself, and feel good about their untarnished principles, but in my eyes at least, they are ultimately childish and have made themselves irrelevant.