Ideas in Stem-Cell research

[x3n]

QUOTEStem-Cell Finesse Too Grotesque  

By Kristen Philipkoski
02:00 AM Jun. 16, 2005 PT

A Stanford bioethicist has gone back to the drawing board to come up with take two of a controversial method to create cells as powerful as embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos.

Dr. William Hurlbut's first attempt to find a solution to the ethical quandary of embryonic stem-cell research -- which researchers believe could lead to therapies for devastating diseases, but which faces resistance from people who oppose destroying embryos -- received mixed reviews.

Despite Hurlbut's efforts to explain what he believed was a morally sound technique for obtaining the cells, some religious leaders called it creepy and some scientists said it was an unnecessary obstacle. But Hurlbut, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, now says he and about 30 leading scientists and bioethicists have hammered out a procedure that's more accessible theoretically and more feasible scientifically. He and his colleagues will reveal details next week, he said, in conjunction with the annual International Society for Stem Cell Research meeting in San Francisco.

\"This will make it even more clear that there's no embryo,\" Hurlbut said. \"This is even less controversial than what we first started with.\"

Hurlbut's first idea proposed using human cloning technology, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, to join a human egg and genetically altered human tissue. The result of this \"altered nuclear transfer\" would not be an embryo, he said, but a disorganized mass of human cells. Nevertheless, the proposal left some critics with the image of a ghoulish bundle of teeth, eyes, fingers and various human organs.

At a meeting of the president's bioethics council in March, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer called the proposed technique \"repugnant and weird,\" according to Wired magazine. Paul McHugh, chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital, said, \"It's a kind of pollution of the human genome.\" And Michael Sandel, a Harvard University professor of government, called it \"morally creepy.\" (continues...)
Taken from:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,128 ... _1techhead

[AYHJA]

So...

Which one of you has the tell all solution to this..? All these smartasses around the board, surely we can think of a better way, right...?

[raum]

i say ask the australians, they already making human blood from stem cells, according to the news.

japan is just making robot flies that live off of blood. what could possibly go wrong with that???

[x3n]

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with amorphic flesh, not-quite human...."stuff" if there is a moral upheaval over using embryos. What does concern some scientists is how reliable are these cells, if the source has already been manipulated to that extent.

[Buffmaster]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/30/time.s ... index.html

[AYHJA]

:: off topic ::

Condi looks hot in that pic....

:: end off topic ::

I'm a little at ends about this...Its rough, either way man...

[raum]

so far all the "break-through" research has been total bullshit and scientists just scamming funds.

we gotta worry a little more about the full disclosure, before we can make this a viable investment.