Chimaera embryos: right or wrong?

[hyena]

@marduk: the image on the site didn't look so disturbing at first blush, but it has been haunting me for the whole day. and i'm not even particularly pro-choice. it really is scary.

 

[Siren]

@fireangel: so i assume, that if you were diagnosed with a horrible disease (i certainly hope you won't), you would appreciate some weird-ass doctor telling you "oh well, you have to learn to live with tragic events, not everything in life is always shiny" and "wait while we look into the +300 ways of preventing your disease, while you die" or even "you should have prevented it, but instead you went and got that disease and now you want me to cure you, bitch".

I'm not saying i don't agree on some points with you, it's just that for some unknown reason i like being a prick on this thread. And possibly every other thread as well. Oh bum it, maybe i am a prick.

 

[loveMikael]

.There should also be considered the possibility that all of this is done for nothing, or even creating things we can´t take back.
(btw, hyena, I don´t mean only this latest invention, but also stem-cell experiments on embryos and whatever else some people come up with in that regard).

I really want to know,what kinda things that coulld be created by "crazy" man.A new threaten vrius or some eating-human monsters?Maybe someone have such crazy idea,but I don't think the temporary technology would allow them to do so.We still on the way to world of "fiction movies".

Why we always think about these non-happened things??Just because we saw too much movies.

 

[loveMikael]

fireangle's point is we should do our best to avoid the diseases,so that the kinda "embyo-exprinment" could be canceld.

You are at the point of healty people,I hope you could think the feelings of suffered people(by cancer and another diseases,no matter caused by envirnment or something else).they are going to die,before that,they have to be sufferd,only because "when you live,you have to get though tragic things ?But when you got horrible disease(I'm sorry,It's an assumption),maybe you would blame that the docter didn't come up with a new theapy.So what's wrong with these "scary" experiments,only it's main idea is to come up with new medical endeavors??

Like you said,now,we are living in a poisoned world,how could we avoid these disease?No one should be blame for this,cause we destroy the nature,meanwhile we enjoy the so-called "rich life".So,we have to pay some price,woundn't we?Besides,you have to know,there are much less diseases which are caused by environment problems than those by any other facters.How could we avoid these?From this point,I saw the meaning of embyo-expriments and any other medical expriment.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

@Siren
I was recently diagnosed with a disease that has a fairly high potential
to end up giving me cancer, but I am not panicing about it trying to find
a cure, we all die eventually anyway. Of course I take the drugs they
give me (in the vain hope they give me "visions" ) and if they happen
to find a cure (surgery is really the only sure cure right now and it's makes
you into the 6 million dollar man... well, not really, but you will end up with
plastic parts) I will take it.

Does this mean I would support this kind of research, even if they would
find a cure during my lifetime? Hell no, if I get cancer, so be it, I don't
feel like fighting with nature.

 

[Zephyrus]

Full Metal Alchemist anyone?

 

[Siren]

Of course research of all kinds (not only medical) should benefit the population and/or increase knowledge, but many things could possibly be prevented instead of cured afterwards. Since the pharma- and medical industry is not going to earn anything from this option, they are not enforcing it.

So what about vaccines? I had the impression that they're mandatory and that they're supposed to prevent a bunch of diseases. Or are they too another way for the pharma and med industries to get more money?

It's true that a lot of diseases can be prevented. For example you can greatly reduce the chance of getting lung cancer by not smoking, or you can prevent the transmission of many diseases by merely washing your hands, and you can protect your liver by not drinking. These things are known, but how is the medical industry supposed to enforce them? There's a little thing called personal freedom, and some things depend on the individual alone. And in the end of the day you'll still have to treat those diseases.

Not all research is focused on developing new drugs. And a lot of research is carried out by universities. Understanding how things work is the basic principle of both preventing and curing diseases. What annoys me the most is the fact that you suggest that the medical industry is governed by profit, which in essence means that your local doctor, nurse and pharmacist wish you ill.

I just don´t believe that all_kinds of research are even going to help people. There is scarce research on subjects/diseases that maybe only 4000 persons in the world have, but there exist like hundred different meds on high blood-pressure. Might have to do with the fact that one sort you can sell to a lot of people, since it is affordable and a lot of persons need it, while the rare medicament for the rare disease might never get back its development costs. Seems that some lives are more "valuable" than others.

It also has to do with the fact that a farmaceutical company is a business and not a charity.
Developing a drug costs millions (if not billions) of dollars, so the company will naturally aim for a drug that has lower risk (something that has already been established as 'working'), or for something that has already been discovered. Of course it's an issue of having a bigger target group too.
But there has been progress on the issue and an increase in the development of such drugs, with the 'orphan drug' status granted by the US and the EU to medicinal products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of rare life-threatening diseases.

Aswell meanwhile countries like India or South Africa have begun to produce their own copied versions of AIDS-meds, since the originals are way to expensive (they are also often too expensive for "western" citizens, too). The very beneficial and do-good pharma-industry sued them for that, even though they could not have sold the original medicaments at their original prices to these people anyhow, so no market share lost. Obviously companies do want to earn their money, and rightful so, but it is not like nowadays you couldn´t save thousands of people who can´t afford medical service or medicaments. If companies don´t want to waste money this way, then well, lots of countries have enough money to share some and produce and hand out medicaments to poorerpeople or to countries where meds are simply not widely available.

Well, i never liked farmaceutical companies anyway. But you have to acknowledge the fact that some of them have made positive steps. And that that's not the only reason why a lot of people in those countries don't have access to help. Here's a few links for your reading pleasure:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37850.php
http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/news/ng.asp?id=70811-gilead-roche-viread-saquinavir-hiv
http://www.ifpma.org/Health/hiv/health_aai_hiv.aspx
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr38/en/index.html

You also have to realise that antiretroviral drugs are not a panacea, since they don't miraculously cure you from AIDS and HIV. Sure, they do help a great lot, but -according to you- shouldn't there be a greater focus on prevention?

So I don´t see why this research on embryos and whatever is the height of helping people, while you could help so many people already now, and it is not done.

I'm sure that's the same train of thought big farmaceutical companies follow, when they prefer to produce a drug for high-blood pressure instead of a drug for only 4000 people.

These might not be your relatives, but could you say to any human: "sorry, we have the meds that help you, but your government whatever is not going to help you in buying them and as you can´t afford them yourself, well, good luck!"

Not too far from now, i might have to say that. Minus the good luck part and the exclamation mark.

uhm yeah, that could be it?

That would be too convenient, wouldn't it?

I was recently diagnosed with a disease that has a fairly high potential to end up giving me cancer, but I am not panicing about it trying to find a cure, we all die eventually anyway. Of course I take the drugs they give me (in the vain hope they give me "visions" ) and if they happen to find a cure (surgery is really the only sure cure right now and it's makes you into the 6 million dollar man... well, not really, but you will end up with plastic parts) I will take it.

Does this mean I would support this kind of research, even if they would
find a cure during my lifetime? Hell no, if I get cancer, so be it, I don't
feel like fighting with nature.

I'm really sorry for that. I sincerely hope that you won't get cancer and that you will live the best life possible without too many problems.

You're right about the fighting the nature part, it eventually hits back. And it's also true that we all eventually die. But that doesn't mean that research should stop and that there shouldn't be new ways to cure diseases. Of course we have to draw the line somewhere and make an effort to find more acceptable ways to do that.



For the record, i'm not too fond of this kind of research either, especially when other alternatives could be developed and used (for example developing stem cell lines without killing embryos, or using adult stem cells). Not to mention that i'm not sure how useful the human-animal thing could be after all (since it contains the animal part in it and the intention is to use it on humans) and if they will manage to make it work at all.

I also just realised that experiments with human embryos probably disturb me more than experiments with human-animal ones, because of the involved killing of a human in the first case as opposed to the killing of something weird in the other. I guess hyena managed to make me re-think about that.



edit: sorry for writing farmaceutical with an 'f', the typo is intentional since writing it with 'ph' surprisingly results in censorship.

 

[King Chaos]

It really does seem to me that it's just a curious unexplored area for scientists where previously they had the theories but lacked the technology to realise them practically. Now that the technology has caught up, some smart guys just want to invent, progress, play god and have a fuck about with life. Sure something good could come from it... but the pessimist in me is generally agreeing with most of you, thinking that's just an angle for them to get their foot in the door and start joining man and beast. The proposed "regulations" will crumble and if this is allowed, it will probably be in our life time that this study goes in horrible directions.

 

[GHOST IN THE RUINS]

Mankind has doubled the average human lifespan from 30 years to 70 or more. Mankind has also found the cure to most diseases that plague us. Mankind has also dominated the whole planet and put everything up for sale (with a discount). And we still worry about ensuring the survival of our species! What the heck for anyway? Try to save the planet from an impending doom caused by an asteroid? what for find a cure for every disease? so we can live longer and wage more wars and create creatures that may be more freaks than us?!

 

[Delirious]

And we still worry about ensuring the survival of our species!

why no, we worry about prolonging the privileged's lifespan even further.

 

[marduk1507]

Mankind has doubled the average human lifespan from 30 years to 70 or more. Mankind has also found the cure to most diseases that plague us. Mankind has also dominated the whole planet and put everything up for sale (with a discount). And we still worry about ensuring the survival of our species! What the heck for anyway? Try to save the planet from an impending doom caused by an asteroid? what for find a cure for every disease? so we can live longer and wage more wars and create creatures that may be more freaks than us?!

Perhaps we can call it a collective ego who thinks it is in control not only of its actions, but of the whole nature as well.

 

[GHOST IN THE RUINS]

this collective ego brings nothing but misery and destruction. incurable diseases happen for a reason, people must die at the pace nature sets for everything on this planet so that new life can take its place...Mankind's most beautiful achievements are in art and music and poetry... Sceince is marvelous but destructive, and human/animal clone embryos are definitely a step in the right direction...maybe a hundred years down the line one can adopt a dog with the brains of a human as a pet! sorry for the rant..

 

[rahvin]

incurable diseases happen for a reason, people must die at the pace nature sets for everything on this planet so that new life can take its place...

Oh sure: everything happens just the way it should, in our fatalistic paradise! I have a spare ticket!

 

[hyena]

I should have listened to my father - 5 years ago or so he said that the whole story about embryonic stem cells being fundamental for curing diseases was totally blown out of proportion because it was very likely that stem cells with analogous properties (ie ability to replicate any tissue) could be extracted from adult individuals without raising ethical concerns.

which turned out to be true, or at least closer to the truth than ever, yesterday. i can see the point about the process being painful, but most cancer treatments atm are awful anyway, and i think that people with a deadly disease will agree to withstand some pain if it's to get a cure.

from bbc.co.uk:

Testicle stem cell harvest plan

A man's testicles might be a source of stem cells to help him fight serious diseases, US scientists have shown.

They extracted early-stage sperm cells from mice, then turned them into cells capable of becoming different tissues.
Writing in Nature, the Weill Cornell Medical College team said their work might lead to treatments for illnesses such as Alzheimer's and diabetes.
However, some doubt has been expressed on the willingness of men to undergo the procedure to extract the cells.
Stem cells are the body's "master cells" that, in theory, can become any type of cell in the body.

Embryo opposition

An obvious source of these is from the human embryo, as unlike adult cells, these have the potential to grow into any tissue type.
However, ethical concerns over the use of embryos in medicine mean that scientists are hunting for a source of easily-harvested adult cells which could be coaxed into any variety of cell.
Stem cells have already been extracted from mouse testicles - however, the New York team is claiming a more reliable way to isolate and develop them, increasing the potential for larger numbers to be produced successfully.
The testicular cells do not need to be genetically "tweaked" to behave more like embryonic stem cells, unlike other "adult stem cells" found elsewhere in the body, say the scientists.
Dr Shahin Rafii, who led the research, said: "It appears that these unique specialized spermatogonial cells could be an easily obtained and manipulated source of stem cells with exactly the same capability to form new tissues that we see in embryonic stem cells.
"For male patients, it could someday mean a readily available source of stem cells that gets around ethical issues linked to embryonic stem cells.
"It also avoids issues linked to tissue transplant rejection, since these 'autologous stem cells' are derived from the patient's own body."

Painful process
He listed several illnesses which he hoped could be tackled using stem cell technology, including Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's, stroke, diabetes and even certain cancers.
It is hoped that one day, implanting large quantities of stem cells into tissue damaged by disease could prompt the body to replace it.
Professor Colin McGuckin, a researcher in stem cell biology at the University of Newcastle, said that several research teams around the world were looking into the potential of the testicle as a stem cell source. He said: "At present, there is an awful lot of interest in this from veterinary circles as a source of stem cells for animal use. "I can see more problems getting humans to agree to have this done, as it would be a very painful procedure to have them extracted."