Scientists find safer way to make human stem cells

[steven johnson]

Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:43pm EDT

By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers said on Thursday they have found a safer way to coax human skin cells into becoming powerful embryonic-like stem cells, taking a step closer to their potential use as treatments for diseases.
A team at the University of Wisconsin said they made the so-called induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells, from human cells without using viruses or exotic genes, which leave behind genetic material that might pose risks if the cells were used as medical therapies... Many teams are working on better ways to get ordinary skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells, the body's master cells that give rise to all 220 cell types in the human body...Thomson said the new method uses a circle of DNA called a plasmid, which carries the genes needed to transform a skin cell into an iPS cell.




http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE52P5WR20090326

 

[Arctic Dave]

1. Shouldn't this be under Science?

[steven johnson]

2. I assiumed the relevance was obvious

Embryonic stem cell research is a 'choice issue.'

The pro-life movement generally believes that this happens at, or shortly after, conception. Thus, they consider the removal of stemcells from an embryo -- a procedure which kills the stemcells -- to be a form of murder of a human being. They argue that no potential health benefits to even hundreds of millions of people can justify the murder of other humans.
The pro-choice movement generally believes that personhood is attained much later in pregnancy, perhaps when the fetal brain develops consciousness during the third trimester. Thus, extracting stemcells from an five or ten-day old pre-embryo is not murder. Killing a pre-embryo, which is only a potential human being, is justified if it has the potential to cure diseases and extend the lives of people.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem12.htm

The recent studies have shown promise, and it appears to be less complicated than embryonic stem cells, and less an ethical problem. Prolife groups like Focus on the Family are expressing excitement over the news.
So, debate's over, right? I mean, scientists will feel they no longer need to look into embryonic stem cells to save us from all life's horrible diseases, right?


http://voices.kansascity.com/node/263

[Arctic Dave]

3. But the stem cell that are being used are not fom "live embyos"

And what is with this?

"The pro-choice movement generally believes that personhood is attained much later in pregnancy, perhaps when the fetal brain develops consciousness during the third trimester."

I was not aware of any statements by the pro-choice movement as such.

[steven johnson]

4. Does this Pro-choice Action Network Statement Suffice?

Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a person or human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church generally disliked abortion because it represented illicit sex, not because it killed a fetus. The church did not make abortion an excommunicable crime until 1869.<3>Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses... Persons, by definition, must be separate individuals who operate independently of others. They do not gain the status of persons by virtue of living inside the body of another person ...
 
The Fetus Focus Fallacy