4 ms·

The ignorance the writer displays in the last paragraph is ridiculous. "Anti-stem cell research campaigns" are against use of embryonic stem cells. But the writ

The ignorance the writer displays in the last paragraph is ridiculous. "Anti-stem cell research campaigns" are against use of embryonic stem cells. But the writer's own article indicates that adult stem cells were used here. That said, assuming his description of the technique is reasonably accurate (which, given the above-mentioned nonsense, is by no means certain), this sounds like an interesting and useful technique.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
esrauch 15y ago
While that is true, wouldn't embryonic stem cell fundamental research be capable of advancing adult stem cell technologies?
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  I see no reason to believe that. Advances in adult stem cell tech doesn't seem to have helped embryonic stem cell research. Why would it work in the other direction? Apparently there are significant differences. Anyway, we have little reason to try, give that adult stem cells are working and all the ethical, ah, difficulties with embryonic stem cells.
pigbucket 15y ago
>The ignorance the writer displays in the last paragraph is ridiculous. "Anti-stem cell research campaigns" are against use of embryonic stem cells. But the writer's own article indicates that adult stem cells were used here. Some opponents have argued that stem-cell research is useless as well as, in the case of embryonic stem-cell research, ethically questionable. I take it the author's point is that now we can prove the general case: stem-cell research can lead to cures, and so disprove one of the (tactical) arguments of opponents. Rush Limbaugh at one point said embryonic stem-cell research in particular is useless, so he won't be bothered by this news.
- lucasjung 15y ago
  I've never heard anybody argue against adult stem-cell research, but I suppose it's possible that somebody out there is making that argument. The only time I've heard people bring up adult stem cell research is to point out that all of the actual treatments derived from stem cell research to date have come from adult stem cell research, and that it is therefore more pragmatic to focus resources on adult stem cell research rather than directing any resources into embryonic stem cell research. Also, most of the arguments I've heard against embryonic stem-cell research acknowledge that it might in fact produce life-saving or life-changing treatments, but that it is nonetheless morally and/or ethically wrong. A literary parallel is Le Guin's "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas:" enormous good comes at the price of involuntary sacrifice on the part of a single innocent. Some conclude that the trade is morally and/or ethically acceptable because of all of the good that is obtained, which cannot be obtained by any other means; others conclude that the good obtained from the sacrifice does not justify the evil of the sacrifice.
- hammock 15y ago
  This is by no means the first case of adult stem cells being used in a treatment.
lotharbot 15y ago
> The ignorance the writer displays in the last paragraph... It may be ignorance. It may also be intentional, glossing over the difference in order to try to weaken opposition to ESC research. Either way, it's an unfortunate blot on an otherwise solid article covering a tremendously interesting piece of news.
jawns 15y ago
NO ONE opposes stem-cell research using adult stem cells, which is what was used here. What the anti-stem cell research campaigns oppose is embryonic stem cell research, because it involves extracting cells from a human embryo, usually killing the embryo in the process. And given that adult stem cell research 1) is morally unobjectionable; 2) is yielding effective treatments; and 3) contains no rejection risk ... I cannot understand why so many have pressed so hard for embryonic stem cell research. Factor #3 alone ought to be enough to give ASCR the edge. Yet in the U.S., federal dollars have effectively been taken away from ASCR and given to ESCR.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

esrauch 15y ago

While that is true, wouldn't embryonic stem cell fundamental research be capable of advancing adult stem cell technologies?

andrewflnr 15y ago
I see no reason to believe that. Advances in adult stem cell tech doesn't seem to have helped embryonic stem cell research. Why would it work in the other direction? Apparently there are significant differences. Anyway, we have little reason to try, give that adult stem cells are working and all the ethical, ah, difficulties with embryonic stem cells.

pigbucket 15y ago

>The ignorance the writer displays in the last paragraph is ridiculous. "Anti-stem cell research campaigns" are against use of embryonic stem cells. But the writer's own article indicates that adult stem cells were used here. Some opponents have argued that stem-cell research is useless as well as, in the case of embryonic stem-cell research, ethically questionable. I take it the author's point is that now we can prove the general case: stem-cell research can lead to cures, and so disprove one of the (tactical) arguments of opponents. Rush Limbaugh at one point said embryonic stem-cell research in particular is useless, so he won't be bothered by this news.

lucasjung 15y ago
I've never heard anybody argue against adult stem-cell research, but I suppose it's possible that somebody out there is making that argument. The only time I've heard people bring up adult stem cell research is to point out that all of the actual treatments derived from stem cell research to date have come from adult stem cell research, and that it is therefore more pragmatic to focus resources on adult stem cell research rather than directing any resources into embryonic stem cell research. Also, most of the arguments I've heard against embryonic stem-cell research acknowledge that it might in fact produce life-saving or life-changing treatments, but that it is nonetheless morally and/or ethically wrong. A literary parallel is Le Guin's "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas:" enormous good comes at the price of involuntary sacrifice on the part of a single innocent. Some conclude that the trade is morally and/or ethically acceptable because of all of the good that is obtained, which cannot be obtained by any other means; others conclude that the good obtained from the sacrifice does not justify the evil of the sacrifice.
hammock 15y ago
This is by no means the first case of adult stem cells being used in a treatment.

lotharbot 15y ago

> The ignorance the writer displays in the last paragraph... It may be ignorance. It may also be intentional, glossing over the difference in order to try to weaken opposition to ESC research. Either way, it's an unfortunate blot on an otherwise solid article covering a tremendously interesting piece of news.

jawns 15y ago

NO ONE opposes stem-cell research using adult stem cells, which is what was used here. What the anti-stem cell research campaigns oppose is embryonic stem cell research, because it involves extracting cells from a human embryo, usually killing the embryo in the process. And given that adult stem cell research 1) is morally unobjectionable; 2) is yielding effective treatments; and 3) contains no rejection risk ... I cannot understand why so many have pressed so hard for embryonic stem cell research. Factor #3 alone ought to be enough to give ASCR the edge. Yet in the U.S., federal dollars have effectively been taken away from ASCR and given to ESCR.