Hacker News Reader

Comment by BluePoints | Hacker News Reader

Stem Cell Research must be allowed.

The trick is that there are many sources of stem cells, some controversial, some most definitely not.

For instance: baby teeth[1]; amniotic fluid[2]; embryos[3]; fetuses[4]; and others. There are even "pluripotent"[5] cells which have similar attributes, which have even been created from skin cells.

"Stem Cell Research must be allowed": of course. Blanket bans are ignorant of the sources, and are effectively idiotic in the extreme. But which do you allow? And do you allow researchers to pay people for them? (note that this could mean abortions become profitable, if amniotic fluid / similar cells are allowed) And how do you get them? They're also still effectively human genetic experimentation - some people will never approve of that.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#cite_ref-60

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Amniotic

[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Embryonic

[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Fetal

[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Induced_pluripotent

Indeed. It would help not calling them by a generic "Stem Cell research" name . Yes, some cell sources fall in the grey, almost black part of the line, but there are other being completely safe and out of ethical concerns. For example, discarded Placentas are full of them and doctors throw them away anyways.

Don't forget about adult stem cells, too. Those do count.

I didn't include those specifically because they're much harder to find:

>Pluripotent adult stem cells are rare and generally small in number but can be found in a number of tissues including umbilical cord blood.

Though I'm not sure if that has changed. I've generally gotten the impression that, while they can literally be found in every tissue, they're much harder to actually find, separate, and stimulate in usable quantities than the ones I listed. Umbilical cord blood is probably worth including though, yes, I think I've heard that's fairly high density. Though that's not what I'd consider to be "adult"; nearly anything to do with growing babies has stem cells.

You've got it right. Not all stem cells are equal,there's CD33+,CD34+,etc. They can be found in many places but the amount of cells matter.

Umbilical coord blood is awesome cause it's full of cd34+, but even then, even the amount of a really good collection won't support a full adult transplant cause the techology to grow and multiple the sample isn't there yet.

~2 years ago the top notch tech would only double the amount of a really good sample ,which would be about 2 ml.

What about human milk? I know I have read articles about breast milk/colostrum containing stem cells. Would this be an easier source than those mentioned in the wikipedia page? Of course, you still have the problem of finding lactating women willing to donate their milk in the name of science...

(Disclaimer: I know nothing about stem cells. I merely have an interest in the science of breast milk as a nursing mother. :) )

Agreed of course, though this really isn't the place or time to get political.

If I understand this correctly, these were stem cells from an adult donor who happened to be resistant to HIV, and there is pretty much no opposition* to adult stem cell research.

*well, some people of course oppose it, but the opposition worth mention is against embryonic stem cells.

Further elaboration: "Doctors chose stem cells from an individual who had an unusual genetic profile: a mutation inherited from both parents that resulted in CD4 cells that lacked the CCR5 receptor."

IIRC, there are only a handful of embryonic stem cell lines currently in active use. If one of them happened to be resistant to HIV I think we would have heard of it before now.

Certainly, if the apparent cure (which I hope and I'm sure the rest of the world hopes it is) came from embryonic stem cells, this would deplete any political capital held by the opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

As the cells came from an adult donor, though, the talking heads on both sides of the issue can rest assured that on a slow news day, they can still fall back on dogmatic opinion pieces!

The difficulty with using HIV as your use-case argument is last I checked, most religious organizations considered HIV to be God's scourge on homosexuals.

e.g. they are not particularly worried about getting rid of it.

(I'm not just being snarky or sarcastic)

This is certainly not true with mainstream Christianity in the UK, although sadly some loud voices can be heard agreeing with what you say.

As just one example, Christian Aid, a large UK charity which works to end poverty and injustice around the world clearly states that HIV is a virus, not a moral issue: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/resources/policy/HIV_AIDS.asp...

If we need to get rid of religion first, so be it. Win-win.

Perhaps, if by "most religious organizations" you mean "a great number of fundamentalist-leaning Christian sects." But that is very different from "most religious people" or even "most Christians."

For example, approximately 50% of Christians are Catholics, which definitely doesn't teach that. The same holds true for Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and other mainstream Christian groups.

See Catholic Charities: http://www.caritas.org/activities/hiv_aids/sinethemba_a_cari...

See this official Vatican statement on AIDS: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2003/doc...

Archbishop Leonard, the Catholic Primate of Belgium, considers the AIDS epidemic not at all a punishment from God, but 'a sort of intrinsic justice' for actions like promiscuity.

What a wonderful doctrine, huh...

I came here to extoll the benefits of stem cell therapy with bio-matter obtained from the proper sources... but you beat me to it. :)

What are the "proper" sources?

Good question. If you lay out your options that you know about, I'll point out if there are among them any acceptable ones in my opinion.

Based on your username are you Jewish?

Because you'll be interested to know that Judaism not only permits embryonic stem cell research it actually encourages using the embryos rather than wasting them.

Nope, not Jewish. Only by stem cell. Religions are insufficient in some major ways. But they found time to include a clause about embryonic research, huh?

Are you looking for an answer or do you just want to be snarky?

I gave you what you need to know to answer your question... I don't care what a religion says. They usually don't know what they're talking about. I didn't know any religion validated embryonic stem cell harvesting and I am saying that completely honestly.

I agree with you, but if IRCC it's about funding. People have problems funding stem cell research when the cells come from certain places. I don't agree with them at all, but I can understand their point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com