4 ms·

That doesn't seem like an ethical issue.

by andars 9y ago

danharaj 9y ago
Can't ethically perform trials on humans if you can accidentally and easily give them cancer.
- ada1981 9y ago
  Or maybe also people who have religious views about stem cell research?
  - nawgszy 9y ago
    >religious views about stem cell[s] I find this hilarious. Not knocking your comment or anything, just fairly sure religious texts didn't say 'thou shall not induce artificial stem cell growth'
    - mschuster91 9y ago
      > Not knocking your comment or anything, just fairly sure religious texts didn't say 'thou shall not induce artificial stem cell growth' Well many religious texts disallow altering your body in any way - Jehovas Witnesses, for example, even prohibit blood transfusions, and in Islam it's haram (a sin) to have tattoos. Pretty certain this would also prohibit doing experimental stuff with stem cells.
      - nielsbot 9y ago
        serious question: is tattoos being haram open to interpretation? i know the bible for example can be seen an conflicting itself in many places.
        mschuster91 9y ago
        I'm neither Muslim nor an Imam, but apparently a majority of Muslims seems to believe it: https://www.thoughtco.com/tattoos-in-islam-2004393 https://www.thoughtco.com/tattoos-in-islam-2004393
        nielsbot 9y ago
        thanks.
      - losteric 9y ago
        Right, but Jehovas Witnesses wouldn't be a concern here - they would reject both pluripotent stem-cell based approaches, and this one.
    - grzm 9y ago
      > I find this hilarious. This comes off as quite dismissive and a lack of willingness to try to understand others. I'm not aware of any religious texts that proscribe injecting a mixture of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride[0] for punishment but some people firmly believe that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.[1] It's fine if you disagree. But please try to do so in a manner that shows respect for someone else. To say "just fairly sure religious texts" isn't granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret religious texts to mean something other than a strict literal interpretation. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
      - losteric 9y ago
        Can you point to scripture that could be interpreted as standing against stem cell-based cures? Because opposing lethal injection is a pretty strict, literal interpretation of "thou shalt not kill".
        grzm 9y ago
        If you interpret the harvesting of stem cells as killing a human being, it's pretty direct. As for capital punishment, one can parse punishment as different from murder, and only the latter as proscribed by "thou shall not kill". My point is not to discuss interpretation of religious texts. I think it's important to take the time to try to understand where someone is coming from. Dismissing it out of hand prevents you from both understanding and hopefully being understood. You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it.
        losteric 9y ago
        I want to clarify context here because I'm not sure you read this thread much less the article: Treatment from natural stem cells is old news, a while ago we discovered how to convert specialized cells into artificial stem cells then into (other) specialized cells, and now this research demonstrates converting between specialized cells without an intermediary "blank slate" stem cell. No one is dismissing religiously inspired ethical arguments "out of hand" - religions have some time-tested philosophical/ethical answers - but a post like > Or maybe also people who have religious views about stem cell research? requires a bit more meat to be taken seriously. You know religions don't talk about stem cells. As you said, it's about interpretations... and we're not mind readers, we don't know what yours is. Communicate your specific concerns and reasoning if you want people to follow your logic. Otherwise, the immediate assumption is that you're suggesting the bible literally says "don't mess with stem cells" - which is funny.
    - ada1981 9y ago
      Not that it matters, but this isn't my opinion. It just seems to me that all sorts of people, in the US especially, have vague religious opposition to any sort of developments involving the use of stem cells (and related things).

That doesn't seem like an ethical issue.

by andars 9y ago

That doesn't seem like an ethical issue.

danharaj 9y ago

Can't ethically perform trials on humans if you can accidentally and easily give them cancer.

ada1981 9y ago
Or maybe also people who have religious views about stem cell research?
- nawgszy 9y ago
  >religious views about stem cell[s] I find this hilarious. Not knocking your comment or anything, just fairly sure religious texts didn't say 'thou shall not induce artificial stem cell growth'
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > Not knocking your comment or anything, just fairly sure religious texts didn't say 'thou shall not induce artificial stem cell growth' Well many religious texts disallow altering your body in any way - Jehovas Witnesses, for example, even prohibit blood transfusions, and in Islam it's haram (a sin) to have tattoos. Pretty certain this would also prohibit doing experimental stuff with stem cells.
    - nielsbot 9y ago
      serious question: is tattoos being haram open to interpretation? i know the bible for example can be seen an conflicting itself in many places.
      - mschuster91 9y ago
        I'm neither Muslim nor an Imam, but apparently a majority of Muslims seems to believe it: https://www.thoughtco.com/tattoos-in-islam-2004393 https://www.thoughtco.com/tattoos-in-islam-2004393
        nielsbot 9y ago
        thanks.
    - losteric 9y ago
      Right, but Jehovas Witnesses wouldn't be a concern here - they would reject both pluripotent stem-cell based approaches, and this one.
  - grzm 9y ago
    > I find this hilarious. This comes off as quite dismissive and a lack of willingness to try to understand others. I'm not aware of any religious texts that proscribe injecting a mixture of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride[0] for punishment but some people firmly believe that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.[1] It's fine if you disagree. But please try to do so in a manner that shows respect for someone else. To say "just fairly sure religious texts" isn't granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret religious texts to mean something other than a strict literal interpretation. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
    - losteric 9y ago
      Can you point to scripture that could be interpreted as standing against stem cell-based cures? Because opposing lethal injection is a pretty strict, literal interpretation of "thou shalt not kill".
      - grzm 9y ago
        If you interpret the harvesting of stem cells as killing a human being, it's pretty direct. As for capital punishment, one can parse punishment as different from murder, and only the latter as proscribed by "thou shall not kill". My point is not to discuss interpretation of religious texts. I think it's important to take the time to try to understand where someone is coming from. Dismissing it out of hand prevents you from both understanding and hopefully being understood. You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it.
        losteric 9y ago
        I want to clarify context here because I'm not sure you read this thread much less the article: Treatment from natural stem cells is old news, a while ago we discovered how to convert specialized cells into artificial stem cells then into (other) specialized cells, and now this research demonstrates converting between specialized cells without an intermediary "blank slate" stem cell. No one is dismissing religiously inspired ethical arguments "out of hand" - religions have some time-tested philosophical/ethical answers - but a post like > Or maybe also people who have religious views about stem cell research? requires a bit more meat to be taken seriously. You know religions don't talk about stem cells. As you said, it's about interpretations... and we're not mind readers, we don't know what yours is. Communicate your specific concerns and reasoning if you want people to follow your logic. Otherwise, the immediate assumption is that you're suggesting the bible literally says "don't mess with stem cells" - which is funny.
  - ada1981 9y ago
    Not that it matters, but this isn't my opinion. It just seems to me that all sorts of people, in the US especially, have vague religious opposition to any sort of developments involving the use of stem cells (and related things).