(No Ratings Yet)
Not because any one side has proven to be right or wrong about the moral and ethical implications of getting the cells from human embryos, but because soon- the embryos won’t be needed.
Dr. Thomson’s laboratory at the University of Wisconsin was one of two that in 1998 plucked stem cells from human embryos for the first time, destroying the embryos in the process and touching off a divisive national debate.
And on Tuesday, his laboratory was one of two that reported a new way to turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without ever using a human embryo.
Stem cells, universal cells that can turn into any of the body’s 220 cell types, normally emerge only fleetingly after a few days of embryo development. Scientists want to use them to study complex human diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s in a petri dish, finding causes and treatments. And, they say, it may be possible to use the cells to grow replacement tissues for patients.
The problem until now had been the source of the cells — human embryos.
The topic, says R. Alta Charo, a University of Wisconsin ethicist, “took on an almost iconic quality the same way Roe v. Wade has.”
If all continues to go well- the arguements as to whether or not it’s ethical to remove cells from human embryos will cease to be relevant. Then it’ll just be back to abortion and gay rights for politicians and religious leaders to bicker about.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
Ms. Missive on 
Fiction Fan on 
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 am
Wouldn't that be the best thing Santa could bring? Go science go.
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:43 am
Wouldn’t that be the best thing Santa could bring? Go science go.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:10 am
This isn't intended to start an arguement over abortion. Women have that right, blah blah blah…Instead of creating embryos to harvest these cells, wouldn't it be more moral, so to speak, to use aborted fetuses in a sort of organ donation for a stem cell resource? I know it sounds vulgar and crude, but the way I see it is that the fetus was to be aborted anyway, at least something slightly more positive can come from it. I also think cord blood should be allowed to be used as a type of organ donation for these different stem cells. Yes, it still borders on moral and ethical values, however…the fetus is still going to be aborted and the cord blood is tossed…
True, skin cells being able to be used is a much better source as is red bone marrow in adults, however, the fetal or cord blood source is a better source.
Again, this isn't an arguement for abortion rights or even making fetuses for a source, it's just the "lesser of an evil," so to speak.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:10 am
This isn’t intended to start an arguement over abortion. Women have that right, blah blah blah…Instead of creating embryos to harvest these cells, wouldn’t it be more moral, so to speak, to use aborted fetuses in a sort of organ donation for a stem cell resource? I know it sounds vulgar and crude, but the way I see it is that the fetus was to be aborted anyway, at least something slightly more positive can come from it. I also think cord blood should be allowed to be used as a type of organ donation for these different stem cells. Yes, it still borders on moral and ethical values, however…the fetus is still going to be aborted and the cord blood is tossed…
True, skin cells being able to be used is a much better source as is red bone marrow in adults, however, the fetal or cord blood source is a better source.
Again, this isn’t an arguement for abortion rights or even making fetuses for a source, it’s just the “lesser of an evil,” so to speak.