Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells
August 19, 2008 | 11:36:04 AMCategories: Medicine & Medical Procedures, Stem Cell Research
Scientists have used embryonic stem cells to generate blood -- a feat that could eventually lead to endless supplies of type O-negative blood, a rare blood type prized by doctors for its versatility.
"We literally generated whole tubes in the lab, from scratch," said Robert Lanza, chief science officer at Advanced Cell Technologies.
People usually require blood transfusions that match their own blood type: A mismatch can be fatal. Type O-negative can be safely transferred into anyone, but is only possessed by about 7 percent of the population, leaving supplies perpetually short.
The new technique, devised by Lanza and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic and University of Illinois, is still preliminary. Its safety hasn't yet been proved in animals, much less humans.
But because blood cells are short-lived and cannot divide, there's reason to believe that stem cell-derived blood cells could pose fewer complications than other therapeutic stem cells, which can divide unpredictably.
"The beautiful thing is that you start with one line, expand them indefinitely and generate as many as you want," said Lanza. "It's a literally inexhaustible source of cells for therapy."
Lanza's team allowed a small culture of embryonic stem cells -- naturally capable of becoming any other type of tissue in the body -- to divide until it numbered a few billion cells. These they treated with a chemical cocktail that coaxed the cells into whatever type they wanted: A, B or O. If they'd started with a type O-negative line, said Lanza, they could just as easily have made that, too.
Tests showed the blood cells to be identical to each other, and able to carry oxygen as efficiently as their natural counterparts.
The Red Cross described the work, published today in Blood, as "pioneering." However, they warned against premature celebration.
"At this stage, the work is very promising, but has not progressed to the stage where the cultured cells are fully equivalent" to natural cells, said the organization in a statement. "Much more work will yet be needed before this becomes a practical reality."
The most pressing uncertainty is safety: Embryonic stem cells are sometimes unpredictable and can develop genetic mutations during chemical reprogramming, leading to future side effects.
Blood cells, however, don't have any DNA -- they lose their nuclei as they develop from stem cells -- and don't divide, instead being broken down by the body when their four-month life cycle ends. That, said Lanza, should reduce the possibility of complications.
"You don't have to worry about anything lifelong," he said. "They'll be gone no matter what."
The ethics are potentially problematic, as embryonic stem cells ultimately originate in an embryo that is destroyed during their harvest -- a process that some religious conservatives equate with murder.
But Lanza said his technique could also work with stem cells produced by de-differentiation, a new and ethically trouble-free process during which adult cells regress into an embryonic state.
De-differentiated cells have a tendency to go cancerous -- but because blood cells are DNA-free, said Lanza, they could be safe in this particular application.
If Lanza's technique works, it will be a boon wherever blood transfusions are needed, but especially in places where type O-negative blood is not immediately available, such as emergency rooms and battlefields.
"There's always a great demand for type O blood," said Red Cross spokeswoman Molly Dalton. "It's always a worry that we don't have enough."
Biological properties and enucleation of red blood cells from human embryonic stem cells [Blood]
Image: WikiMedia Commons
Correction: I originally stated that Lanza's team made type O-negative blood; it was type O blood that they made -- still versatile, but not quite the universal grail of type O-negative. However, Lanza said that the technique could just as easily make O-negative, provided one started with an O-negative stem cell line -- something they did not possess (and does not appear to exist in any of the embryonic stem cell lines currently eligible for federal research funding.) "As soon as you get one line, it's immortal," he said.
My apologies for this mistake.
See Also:
- Emergency Type O Blood Shortage in Georgia
- Hacking the Hack of Stem Cell Reprogramming
- Bush Praises Skin to Stem Cell Breakthrough in State of the Union
- Too Soon to Give Up on Embryonic Stem Cells
- New Method for Controversy-Free Embryonic Stem Cells
WiSci 2.0: Brandon Keim's Twitter and Del.icio.us feeds; Wired Science on Facebook.
Another phenomenally beneficial step forward for us; let's hope religion doesn't raise its ugly head yet again to stand in the way of scientific progress as so frequently does.
"The ethics are potentially problematic, as embryonic stem cells ultimately originate in an embryo that is destroyed during their harvest -- a process that some religious conservatives equate with murder."
Because it is far better to make sure that someone who doesn't want that child and will treat it like crap is forced to carry it, birth it, and then make other taxpayers pay for its existence while ruining it's life than it is to help people who are already alive, loved, and need help. People who are against this process are cruel on multiple fronts. That's actually quite impressive.
There will be people, such as myself, who will refuse to be treated with such blood because it comes from the destruction of embryos.
Another phenomenally beneficial step forward for us; let's hope bill doesn't raise his ugly head yet again to double post as he so frequently does.
Yeah right Paul. Easy to say that when you, or or son or daughter or brother is bleeding to death, it might be a different story. Go Stem cells Go!
Thanks, Paul - more blood for us.
/Natural selection at work.
Bah, get over it. Embryos are no longer needed to produce stem cells. Embryos are the preferred source, but are no longer 'required'.
And besides, I don't hear religion complaining about all the genetically engineered food we all eat. Life is life. If you're going to oppose people playing with god's legos, don't be half-assed about it.
You know...I've never met the pro-lifer that was both anti-war and anti-death penalty.
Anyone here fit that bill? Now THAT'S a pro-lifer. Otherwise, you're not pro-life, you're anti-abortion.
@Paul: show me, don't tell me.
@ Bill and Orly
How can you support profiting from killing someone else no matter how much good you take out of it?
There is no doubt that stopping the life of an embryo is killing because it is alive (until it is killed).
The article suggests that harvesting stem cells from embryos is "a process that some religious conservatives equate with murder". You do not need to be a religious conservative to know and acknowledge this. Currently in the UK there is a law being discussed (I am not sure at what stage it is now) which calls these embryos savior siblings. Everyone knows what savior means - die to save others; and siblings is nothing but an acknowledgment that they are in fact human beings. The difference from murder in the legal sense is that human law will permit it. It does not mean that it is not killing and/or that everyone will have to accept it. I am ready to go against such a law.
Orly, you mentioned social and economic problems with bearing an unwanted child. Are you perhaps talking about yourself? Please do not call others unwanted unless you speak of yourself. Who is unwanted and who is a a weight on the tax system? You used the word "existence" which clearly shows your lack of respect for other human beings. People live and not exist.
Like Paul, I will refuse to have such blood if it had to be derived from the killing of someone else, especially knowing that it can be developed from stem cells taken from adults; and it does not really need to use the "de-differentiation" technique suggested in the article. Everyone has an amount of stem cells in our bones.
I will stop here because a full discussion will be too long.
@Laura.
I fit your bill + 2 more. I think to claim being "Christian" as a reason to be pro-life,as many do, one should also be pro-welfare & pro-public education to help take care of these children(most of the same crowd are not). So I guess I'm lonely here..ProLife & welfare & public education, antiwar, anti death penalty..
Just wanted you to know at least one person exist with these beliefs.
"I've never met the pro-lifer that was both anti-war and anti-death penalty."
@Laura: Don't you think that's a bit of a misnomer? I don't think I've every met a pro-lifer who was pro-war. That is, I've never met one that thought the killing and destruction of property was a good thing. What I have met are people who believe that everyone deserves the rights we enjoy here and are willing to back that up with they're own lives.
im a big tool
"You know...I've never met the pro-lifer that was both anti-war and anti-death penalty."
@Laura: Yes, because killing an innocent baby(aka fetus) is NOT equivalent to killing a murderer. And I'm not sure why you lumped war into your misguided statement, it is in no way related.
@Tony: You're not alone, at least now there's two of us ;)
I'm all for stem cell research, there's a lot of progress being made on obtaining stem cells without discarded embryos, so more power to finding out how to better life, eh?
@Tony:
The reason those that claim Christianity do not support welfare and public education is because there is a difference between CHOOSING to give your money to the needy and the government FORCING it upon you.
It is having the freedom to support the needy in the way I see fit.
Do you really think that the government can more efficiently spend your money than you can?
I can't believe they kill children for their blood. Children!
Waaaah wahhhh! The poor embryo that will more than likely be incinerated eventually anyways. Yes, I will admit that these frozen embryos could eventually be implanted in someone's womb. But I would venture a guess that there is a larger supply of frozen embryos than there is demand for implantation. This means that the vast majority of them will be destroyed eventually simply because its not cost effective to store them for infinite periods of time. One could almost make the case that these frozen embryos are like a person with a terminal illness. Yes, the person may be able to delay the inevitable but eventually they will perish. If someone like this did something that would benefit others at the cost of what remaining time they had, we would call them a hero. Yes, I am well aware that the totally unaware frozen embryos would have no choice in the matter. My point is that if it will be destroyed in 99.9% of all cases....stop whining.
I think people tend to forget that there's raging Super Villain evil and quiet derranged evil.
Believing that you should or have a right to kill anyone means you support war, defense isn't an excuse. Just because you want to be someone who doesn't support war doesn't mean you're free from responsiblity for participating in it.
The dangerous kind of evil are the derranged, the people who convince themselves they're right. The people who don't live with the wrong they commit - but instead justify it with morality.
I understand your point. My response to your question is first how would I determine Who the truly needy are and how would they petition me, and how would I find the time to hear their petition? I think the government is better suited for this, even though I wish there was a better way. Second point, I'd rather be FORCED to give money to our own needy, than FORCED to pay for war we shouldn't be in in the first place...which is also happens to be alot more expensive..Not trying to argue. Just the way I see it. Take care.
He said "it's immortal."
Here ye, I say unto thee that none of ye shall find immortality! Immorality, maybe. Blood-sucking heathens! Sticking your fangs into a little baby's bum and sucking type Oh. God have mercy on you all!
I agree with Hybrid -- dangerous kind of people are the ones who are evil... or something.
Have none of you ever watched an embryo wince in pain, crying out for its mother? How could you take its precious cells... You should all be locked up in a cell. Like a prison cell, get it? Because you're murderers in Glod's eyes. I hope Glod and Cheesus save you all from their wrath.
Anthony Bonello: "Everyone knows what savior means - die to save others; and siblings is nothing but an acknowledgment that they are in fact human beings."
Are you actually serious??
I have dogs that are siblings (same parents) and they will never be acknowledged to be human beings! Siblings is not exclusive to our race you poor, misguided, ignorant fool!
Religion has killed more people on this planet than could possibly ever be saved, but I wish we would start saving the ones we can! Come down off your soapbox; Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and God all want to talk to you on a conference call!
Ron -- that's dumb because Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are made up by humans and Glod actually MADE humans up! I hope you understand Glod's love. Glod is real and loves you and wants to punish you forever if you don't love him black.
@UltimateXian
Good job, your sarcasm just brought on the wrath of the extremists.
@Shawn
Everyone needs to re-read what shawn said it makes a very good point. bisically, die for nothing, or die for someone?
If you're against cultivating stem cells from a day old embryo, you should stop taking antibiotics right now and let your next infection kill you. You are a hypocrite that treats cells, and life, differently based on what it eventually grows into. You only care if the DNA instructions result in a human. You could care less about any other form of life, and you could care less about the fate of those lives you claim to want to save. Instead, you condemn the lives that already are in the defense of lives that have yet to be. You trade lives all the same, you are no better than those you despise.
@Tony:
*Most* churches and charities do a pretty good job of identifying and taking care of the needy.
Since you must have the numbers... What is the cost per year of the war in Iraq compared to the sum of ALL the federal governments welfare services?
My point is that government should only be responsible for the things that we can't do privately. One of those things is defense/(war)(whether or not you agree with the current situation is irrelevant).
I can easily give money to the needy but I can't easily defend a nation.
Justin - there is a difference between CHOOSING not to have an abortion and the government FORCING you not to have an abortion.
Further, consider two societies. One lets people choose to spend their money on the needy. The other forces people. I will bet you that those who "choose" to help the needy spend significantly less than those who are "forced" to (despite the fact that you *elect* the people who are putting these taxes on you, meaning you in essence chose when you cast your vote). This results in a situation where, per dollar, choosing is more efficient, but the end result by forcing has a greater overall effect.
Anthony Bonello: How can you call a clump of identical cells "human"? It has no brain with which to store memories, no heart with which to pump blood, no lungs with which to aspirate. Personally, I think once memories are being formed, then it qualifies as "human". Until then, it's merely a clump of cells, just like a skin cell or a muscle cell, with some different proteins and such. Shaving is no more "death" for hair cells than letting an embryo "die".
Your attack on Orly is called an ad-hominem. I was not an unwanted child, personally, but I can attest that there are many unwanted children, and if you don't believe me that's fine, but you are not omniscient. There are more people in the world than you have ever seen.
For those who don't like ethics and religions standing in the way of progress I've got a plan of increasing blood supplies:
1. Forceful blood retrieval: make prison convicts regularly donate their blood as part of their sentences. Their health will never be at risk, and they actually will be saving lives with their blood. Death convicts also could be spend on donor organs. Why waste the bodies? It's either ethic or religion matter, both irrelevant to many of the posters here.
2. Another thought along the line: make abortion centers offer payment to women for the embryos. Compensation should be balanced against women's economical needs. Major advertisement campaign won't hurt either. Eventually this will produce constant supply of cheap stem cells.
This will be the real progress, with nothing standing in its way. Isn't it that what you strive for?
Take your frozen babies and implant them in yourself if you want to save em so bad. At this point, 80% will probably wither if you attempted - and would've ended up being menstruated otherwise, stop playing devil's advocate for a straw man. And to begin with, their 'mother' donated them. So it's not really your say what's morally right for a bundle of pluripotent cells. And stop feeding me these BS lines of the embryo's choice. It has no neurons, only the blueprints. It relys on the will of it's host to survive. Not your moral compass. Mind your own business, and go pray.
YOU better go pray, Mr. -_- because you're sells will be harvested someday!
@DCX2:
the abortion debate doesn't boil down to choice... it boils down to when a baby/fetus gets human rights.
On your 2 societies point, what data do you have to back up your claim? If the government isn't forcing welfare, then that means a person would be taxed LESS, that person then would have MORE money to spend/save/invest/DONATE.
Once again... my point is the government is not the solution to an issue that can be solved privately.
wow so all of you who think that killing these embryos is wrong then think about this if we didn't use them for stem cell research they would be aborted from the mother and put right in the trash why not use them to help those who are in need then simply throw them away its not like that embryo was going to live anyways and if it was born the mother would probably not want it and get rid of it in some way. come on people seriously i would rather see aborted embryos used for a greater purpose wrather than thrown away
The above comment is quite possibly one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen in text. Learn English, Xian.
@justin- do you really believe that churches and charities will be anymore efficient with your money than the government? Most preachers are politicians in sheep's clothing, IMO. Stepping away from the argument,in fairness, many rural churches don't have the funds to help very many at all. At least in my community they don't. Local food banks are running dry as well.
Why not also eat them?
do whatever you want,but nature is much more intellegent than you. god knows its way.
Sat Nam
Now, there's an original idea! Let's eat our unwanted embryos.
@tony:
that is why i said *most*. i believe that i am able to discern the churches/charities that are spending the money properly... it is evident in the results. once again i have the decision where to put my money and i alone am at fault if i give it to a crappy church/charity.
churches and food banks get their funds from donations. maybe if people weren't paying high taxes to support social welfare programs they would have more money to give where they feel it is needed.
Justin - Comparing the cost of ONE war to the cost of ALL welfare? That seems fair. Maybe if you were to compare defense spending in total to welfare spending in total, that would be more of an apples-to-apples comparison. But, okay, I'll bite.
Cost of the Iraq War, as estimated by some Nobel-prize winning economist, is roughly $12 billion per month. This puts a yearly price tag at $144 billion. We'll do $140 to make the math easier.
Cost of the entire federal food stamp program in 2005 - $28.6 billion for the year. Two and a half months of Iraq war.
Cost of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ("welfare" after the Clinton reforms of 1996, before which it was "Aid to Families with Dependent Children") for 2007 - $16.5 billion. One and a half months in Iraq.
So even with this lop-sided comparison, these two "massive federal welfare programs" altogether consume less than one third of the federal defense spending in one specific theater of war.
By the way...total defense spending is over $700 billion. The two federal programs in question represent about 7% of what we spend on defense, and they are two of the largest programs for helping the needy.
So, do all pro-lifers all have a house full of adopted pets or are they just flaming hypocrites?
Jace - they are all flaming hypocrites.
Hey, speaking of military/defense spending, anyone recall the $2.5 trillion Rumsfeld says the Pentagon could not account for in a press conference he called on 9/10/01? That was the day before a plane hit the side of the Pentagon housing the accounting info. Pretty cool, huh?
Justin - We choose are elected representatives. In this way, we also choose where we want our tax money to go. Apparently, most people believe that humans are greedy and if we don't tax them they will keep more of their money rather than donating the extra to charity. Seriously...how many CEOs and hedge fund managers make hundreds of millions (even billions!) of dollars per year?
My point is that the government is a solution when people will not solve that problem privately. Failing to elect people who spend it properly is a failure of us, not the system.
asdf - it was actually $2.3 trillion, but thanks for mentioning it. there's a video on youtube (search for "oj1rT4bszWg" it's called "Where is the money?") where CBS mentioned it.
@justin- Riiiight. Wouldn't be interested in some prime swampland would ya? People wouldn't donate more and you know it. Givers give, the rest make excuses.
Doh. Grammar typo - should have been "our".
And the abortion debate is about choice. Some fanatical right-wingers want to force people not to have abortions even if they want to. You don't see any fanatical left-wingers forcing people to have abortions, do you?
Actually, we don't choose our elected representatives, companies like DIEBOLD choose for us.
@Anthony Bordello
"Orly, you mentioned social and economic problems with bearing an unwanted child. Are you perhaps talking about yourself? Please do not call others unwanted unless you speak of yourself."
Call me crazy, but people who get fetuses sucked out of their wombs probably are pregnant with an UNWANTED child. Are you completely stupid, or did you think that people who have abortions wanted to stay pregnant and raise the children? On top of that, when you grow a womb, then you have earned the right to have a say in the matter. Until then, you don't. At all.
"You used the word "existence" which clearly shows your lack of respect for other human beings. People live and not exist."
No, they exist as well as live. See the definition of the word "existence" and try to get back to Earth sometime soon. I take back my previous question. You are clearly stupid.
@justin
"@Laura: Yes, because killing an innocent baby(aka fetus) is NOT equivalent to killing a murderer. And I'm not sure why you lumped war into your misguided statement, it is in no way related."
Wrong three times. Killing is killing. If you are pro-death penalty, and anti-abortion, then you cannot call yourself pro-life, because you advocate death. "Anti-abortion" just doesn't look as good in a pamplet. Since you can't figure the war thing out on your own war=killing people. If you're going to be a hypocrit, at least be willing to admit it. The third place you were wrong? It's not an innocent child, it's 8 cells, no organs, no heart, no lungs, no brain, no anything except cells that were never intended to be implanted, cells that will be destroyed if not used for something like this. You can dislike it all you want, but at least understand it before you judge.
Another of yours:
"Since you must have the numbers... What is the cost per year of the war in Iraq compared to the sum of ALL the federal governments welfare services?"
^^That's relatively easy to find out. The Iraq war costs $450 billion this year (that comes down to about $1.2 billion per day, conincidentally, the national debt increases by $1.4 billion every day, and the interest on that debt is $41 billion per year...since clearly the war is the vast majority of that debt, it is only fair that the interest on that debt be included in the price, but I let you do that on your own). If you want to get serious, according to the Budget of the United States of America for the Year 2008, Homeland Security, the "Global War on Terror," securing the border, and a few other here-and-theres, the entire security effort cost $878.2 billion dollars...before we start discretionary funding of agencies.
Welfare is a little more difficult. How would you like to define this? Would you like to go with all the programs, which include such social benefits as education, justice, labor, the treasury, transportation, energy...etc...agencies, which are all social welfare programs? Or would you only like to include the ones you (assumption alert) don't use yourself, like HUD, welfare, food stamps, and health and human services like clinics and medicaid? Those cost in total $164.1 billion. And they're discretionary programs, were cut back by 5.48 billion this year, and are scheduled to be cut back by billions more in the next few years. So. To answer your question, the war costs $450 billion a year, if you don't include all the state-side back up in the total (and remember, they can't afford to give the soldiers body armor with that money), and welfare costs $164.1 billion dollars. According to the US budget.
So....did you have a point? Certainly it didn't have anything to do with all the luxeries and subsidies you and everyone else enjoys as a result of those social programs, right? Welfare and food stamps aren't the only "social" programs. You are aware of that, right?
To those people that have issues about the use of embryos think about this... since the groups of cells(embryos)that you think have "souls" produce stem cells that can theoretically provide an inexhaustible supply of cells for use. Wouldn't that mean that the "soul" would live on forever in the produced lines that would, in my opinion, be of more benefit to the human race than the god that endowed those cells with a "soul"? Those cells would provide life as opposed to said god, and the religions that are dedicated to him/her/it/them, that only serve to divide us and breed intolerance towards others that believe differently than what we're taught to believe in.
example: Self righteous persons such as Anthony Bonello that make hateful comments such as.. "Orly, you mentioned social and economic problems with bearing an unwanted child. Are you perhaps talking about yourself? Please do not call others unwanted unless you speak of yourself. Who is unwanted and who is a a weight on the tax system?". BTW Anthony, the definition for savior doesn't mention anything about dying. It simply means "A person who rescues another from harm, danger, or loss" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Savior). Just thought you'd want to know, since apparently not "everyone" knows what it means ;)
On a lighter note, it sounds like "The Great Revelation" could be right around the corner. Check out the video link to understand, lol... http://www.hbo.com/trueblood/
@UltimateXian
"Ron -- that's dumb because Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are made up by humans and Glod actually MADE humans up! I hope you understand Glod's love. Glod is real and loves you and wants to punish you forever if you don't love him black."
Humans made up "Glod" - if not then I'm sure he'll show up and prove me wrong! An omniscient, omnipotent being wouldn't bother wasting time "punishing" mere mortal souls. He/She would probably be hanging out with the other omniscient, omnipotent beings pointing out the ridiculous claims many humans make regarding them and their powers! Think "God TV"!
My sincere hope is someday science will be able to regrow lost limbs for people because despite all the "medical miracles" people claim happen, this one has never been documented in all of recorded history. Your (and anyone else's) "God" for that matter, is batting a big fat 0 for forever in this department!
While I'm on a rant over self righteous folk, please explain why Jesus was one of a long line of prophets/saviors who all happen to have the same "birthday", miracles attributed to them, and healing powers? It's not a coincidence, it's just the same BS story rewritten until enough people in the right(wrong?) place decided this is the story they're sticking with!
/rant
If the Churches really cared for the poor and unfortunate people, it wouldn't have amassed such vest wealth in the first place. Anyone who can't see that organized religions are no different than a global corporation is just blinded by his/her faith. And the religious leader who are against stem cell research is in reality no different from Taliban leaders forcing women to cover their faces. All of them are forcing their own particular interpretation of religion upon the rest of us, regardless of whether we even subscribe to their religion in the first place.
Ron -- Who is this "God" you keep referring to? I'm talkin' about Glod and his only son, Cheesus, who we will also refer to as Lard.
Sounds like you don't need this:
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Haha, this is nothing but entertainment, I love watching people fight online
Seems to me like there is nothing but GOOD stuff coming from Stem cell research, I don't see what all the fuss is about? Let the scientists do their jobs.
Haha, this is nothing but entertainment, I love watching people fight online
What I don't get is why we never hear about an anti-in-vitro movement? Pretty sure lots of fertilized embryos are trashed every in-vitro attempt, but you never hear people complaining about that.
Woot! Go Science!
Well the fuss is a respect for human life. I don't think i would equate a embryo to a person, but I would also not equate it to just a lump of living cells.
The idea of living in a world where people can sell eggs for stem cell research, and then sell products made from them, seems a bit disgusting.
Some new "botox" product to make your face young again that is made from stemcells, is to me a disgusting and dark possible future.
We should use stemcells, but with great respect, so as to honor human life. there is a line, and we should err on the side of human decency and not medical expediency.
though this research seems to be respectful, so long as the end result, when we actually sell this blood to the world, is making blood from skin cell stemcells, and not embryonic. where
Its funny how people have no problem exterminating smaller forms of life (insects, mice, etc) to make their environment more comfortable but they get all sorts of angry when scientists use human cells to save human lives
If religious people don't want to have their own life saved from these technologies - then let them die. but they have NO RIGHT trying to stop the progress of technology that can save countless other human lives.
Seriously! When are these Right Wing Nut jobs going to get a clue! It's sad they actually think their Christians!
@ Ron Aug 19, 2008 12:56:42PM
Yes I am serious. I tried to be brief in my previous comment which might have led to insufficient information.
What I was referring to is the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. This defines embryo as:
"a live human embryo and does not include a human admixed embryo"
and thus siblings in this context is with reference to human beings, not other species.
Have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7409264.stm
to get an idea of what I mean.
With regards to "poor, misguided, ignorant fool" you mentioned, I'll let others decide.
Many people equate religion with extremism. You either have a religion or you do not, in which case you belief in something else which will be your religion. Thus according to this, everyone is an extremist.
@ DCX2 | Aug 19, 2008 1:21:29 PM
You do not need a brain to store memories or a heart to be called human being. As soon as you are conceived you are human through your DNA.
Remember that when you shave you are cutting a mineral not cells.
"There are more people in the world than you have ever seen." This applies to you as well.
ORLY? | Aug 19, 2008 1:59:38 PM
I do not need to grow a womb to have my opinion. I am granted that right as a free person living in a democratic country.
Just Matt | Aug 19, 2008 2:03:19 PM
I never said that I am "Self righteous" but I have an opinion and I have the right to say it.
With regards to the meaning of the word "savior" when seen in context it actually means ending the life of the embryo which for me equates to killing. See the link provided above.
By the way, I invite all the people mentioned above to show their names if they haven't already instead of hiding behind a nome-de-plume.
Cheers.
Hi,
Just been reading a couple of comments on here and I would like to express my views.
I think that this a great break through. We will never move forward as a race of people if every step we take towards accomplishing something great is pulled down my religion.
People are saying that using embryos are wrong I would like to ask the question why is it wrong?
Hi,
Just been reading a couple of comments on here and I would like to express my views.
I think that this a great break through. We will never move forward as a race of people if every step we take towards accomplishing something great is pulled down by religion.
People are saying that using embryos are wrong I would like to ask the question why is it wrong?
Michael, you have not been reading the above comments. Using human embryos to harvest stem cells equates to killing a human being. There are other ways to get stem cells that do not involve the destruction of a human life.
Go Science!!!!!! This is a great break through!!
Hi,
Just been reading a couple of comments on here and I would like to express my views.
I think that this a great break through. We will never move forward as a race of people if every step we take towards accomplishing something great is pulled down by religion.
People are saying that using embryos are wrong I would like to ask the question why is it wrong?
Posted by: Michael | Aug 20, 2008 6:51:58 AM
Michael, you have not been reading the above comments. Using human embryos to harvest stem cells equates to killing a human being. There are other ways to get stem cells that do not involve the destruction of a human life.
Posted by: Anthony Bonello | Aug 20, 2008 7:58:55 AM
Anthony- Define what it means to be a Human Being? If you can define it and prove without a shadow of a doubt with empirical research that embryos exhibit the same characteristics when they are at the stage to be "harvested" then you can claim that embryos are human beings. otherwise they are tantamount to a bunch of cells that are developing into an organism.
As soon as you are conceived you are human through your DNA.
Posted by: Anthony Bonello | Aug 20, 2008 1:22:57 AM
-----------------------------------------------
What about miscarriages? Are women guilty of murder because of failed pregnancies? See, it's easy to take an argument to ridiculous extremes. We can even go farther, since life begins at conception then when women have their period (basically ejecting an unfertilized egg) they have also committed murder.
.
But I'm pretty sure you will be able to warp those scenarios to fit your little view of the world and again justify dictating to others what they can and cant' do with their lives and bodies. I just wanted you to recognize that you're a hypocrite, and not a very bright one at that.
@ some_guy | Aug 20, 2008 9:08:28 AM
Don't try to be philosophical about basic things. An embryo with a full complement of human DNA in the nuclei of its (human derived) cells is enough for me to be defined as a human being. Thus such an embryo should have all the rights that you and me have in front of any law.
Just for the record I do not wish to get on the subject of partial human / partial animal embryos that some scientists are suggesting. I do not agree with these being created in the first place.
@ Dalkorian | Aug 20, 2008 9:47:28 AM
"it's easy to take an argument to ridiculous extremes"
You said it not me.
By the way, I am not dictating anything. I am just expressing my opinion which in a democratic country I have a right to do.
@ Dalkorian | Aug 20, 2008 9:47:28 AM
"it's easy to take an argument to ridiculous extremes"
You said it not me.
By the way, I am not dictating anything. I am just expressing my opinion which in a democratic country I have a right to do.
[correcting a mistake in the name]
@Anthony Bonello
"I do not need to grow a womb to have my opinion. I am granted that right as a free person living in a democratic country."
Again with your inability to read. You can have an opinion all you want, but until you have a stake in the issues (and unless you are a woman and can give birth, you don't), you have NO SAY IN THE MATTER WHATSOEVER NOR DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ONE.
Learn to fucking English you dumbass. You can't read, you don't understand the meaning of simple and everyday words. You have no ability to apply basic logic to common situtations, nor step outside of your own box to see things from a different perspective. You are a pathetic example of humanity. What the fuck school graduated you, and why didn't someone bitch slap both of your parents? They should be embarassed. And so should you.
Left out of last post:
"You do not need a brain to store memories"
Yes, actually. Yes you do. Example 7,345,275,940 of you being a total idiot.
@ORLY? | Aug 20, 2008 10:12:39 AM
"NO SAY IN THE MATTER WHATSOEVER NOR DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ONE"
And who are you to say that?
We are not actually discussing abortion here but even if we were every human being has a right for an opinion and it is not going to be you who will negate them this.
Since in the future I might be confronted with the use of such created blood (as mentioned in the article) I have more than enough rights to discuss and express my opinion.
"Learn to fucking English you dumbass. You can't read, you don't understand the meaning of simple and everyday words. You have no ability to apply basic logic to common situtations, nor step outside of your own box to see things from a different perspective. You are a pathetic example of humanity. What the fuck school graduated you, and why didn't someone bitch slap both of your parents? They should be embarassed. And so should you."
Because not everyone in the world is intollerant like yourself. If you want to teach someone the use of the English language I hope you will not start with the kind of vocabulary you have used above.
Cheers.
@greep:
You said it first, but I agree with you. I am also anti-in vitro fertilization. I'm not sure if I am anti-abortion, or pro-choice, but I am anti-in vitro.
@some guy:
you said - "Anthony- Define what it means to be a Human Being? If you can define it and prove without a shadow of a doubt with empirical research that embryos exhibit the same characteristics when they are at the stage to be "harvested" then you can claim that embryos are human beings. otherwise they are tantamount to a bunch of cells that are developing into an organism."
Ever wonder if until that definition is made, that some may think of you as being "merely a bunch of cells"? Cause it's true, you are just a bunch of cells. Perhaps we are dealing with something here that is more than the sum of it's parts? Yet we seem to be only interested in "harvesting" (or not) these parts.
Go Stem Cells Go!! =)
You know what, though, Anthony Bonello? You really haven't been the pillar of reading comprehension. You have incorrectly defined at least two words, still don't seem to understand that "having a say in the matter" and "having an opinion on the matter" are completely different, and seem to think that memories are stored in an organ other than the brain. You aren't doing yourself any favors.
Honestly, you should stop. You are making yourself appear very dumb.
Also, you should probably back off of ORLY?. You started all this with an unnecessary insult and some real displays of idiocy. You basically deserve everything you get for the way you have behaved. You really should be embarassed of yourself right now.
@Joseph | Aug 20, 2008 12:23:30 PM
re "having a say in the matter"
Please address that to ORLY? . I was quoting him/her.
re needing a brain for memory. That was lifted out of context. Please refer to Anthony Bonello | Aug 20, 2008 1:22:57 AM
I insist "You do not need a brain-to-store-memories or a heart to be called human being. As soon as you are conceived you are human through your DNA."
By the way, there are other kinds of memory such as muscle memory which people who practice to achieve fast speeds in particular physical activity, such as playing an instrument, will develop with practice.
Cheers.
@Anthony:
so by your logic an embryo with a genetic disorder of not having a full complement of DNA ie 22 pairs chromosomes is not human? i wasn't trying to be philosophical. i was actually interested in what it means to be human. Because just having a full set of human DNA does not equate to being a human. It is very possible to inject plasmids of human DNA into a lab mouse and the lab mouse does not transform into a human.
Lets ground ourselves in facts. ES-Cells are harvested at the blastocyst stage of development which are hollow microscopic ball of cells 4-5 days old. Not a 8 or 9 month fetus. It is also done in-vitro i.e not from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.
@Devil's advocate; you raise a very interesting point! And I agree with you that we are definitely more than the sum of our parts.
Here is some food for thought: If "God" created us with an intellect to know "Him" better and to know his creation better, then isn't discovering ways to improve our lives just discovering new aspects of His creation? granted we need an ethical framework which religion is supposed to be to use the knowledge that we gain properly but i submit that saving a child who has sickle cell anemia's life is quite the noble act.
Internet fighting is fun, isn't it? I love this Anthony Bonello guy. The posts are hilarious. Let's check out some of the highlights.
"Everyone knows what savior means - die to save others; and siblings is nothing but an acknowledgment that they are in fact human beings."
Two incorrect meanings in one sentence. Impressive.
"People live and not exist."
Well, that's a neat trick.
"You either have a religion or you do not, in which case you belief in something else which will be your religion."
...so...you either have a religion...or you have a religion?
"You do not need a brain to store memories or a heart to be called human being."
Correct. I store my memories in my spleen.
"I never said that I am "Self righteous""
Well, I'd hope not, since it's an insult.
"Because not everyone in the world is intollerant like yourself."
...coming from the poster who called someone else an unwanted person because they recognize that people who get abortions don't want the child.
"Don't try to be philosophical about basic things. An embryo with a full complement of human DNA in the nuclei of its (human derived) cells is enough for me to be defined as a human being."
Don't YOU get philisophical! I'll be the only one here twisting things to fit my own perspective based on a self-applied sense of moral superiority, wisdom, and enlightenment.
Wow. Just, wow. Keep it up, buddy! You're making my day. You're just great.
@some_guy | Aug 20, 2008 12:37:32 PM
I understand your argument re 22 pairs of chromosomes. No, I do not think that genetic disorders will reduce any of the humanity of a person.
The blastocyst stage is one of the stages that an embryo goes through. It does not mean that he is not human because of that.
By the way, can you tell us your definition of human being.
re: injecting human DNA in animals or vice versa, I already said that I do not agree. I see it nothing but a monstrosity.
Choosing about the embryo stem cells usage is not really about choosing a medical treatment (which I am in favor to use) it's about choosing how do we handle finding source for genetics therapy, I am not a christian foundamentalist, in fact I am pro-abortion/state church division/euthanasia/etc. etc. but I am not sure that I want that the embryo (a bunch of cells) is not considered as a life-form we should gave rights to and protect... at the end I am a bunch of cells originated from an embryo too...double think about that..I am afraid that if we determine too looses boundaries here other genetic exploitation (maybe a really bad one) is made possible.
Donno situation there in US but here in Italy/Germany/France there are a lot of educated christian thinker that really give us good ideas about those problems (and a lot of foundamentalist too...it's not a paradise) I'm talking about jesuits here not some US senator/president or some people commenting here.
"re: injecting human DNA in animals or vice versa, I already said that I do not agree. I see it nothing but a monstrosity."
But whether you find it a monstrosity or not, it fits your definition of human as you have listed thus far: "As soon as you are conceived you are human through your DNA." So, who cares if you agree? According to you, it's a human whether it disgusts you or not. These animals have human DNA in their bodies. That fits your description. If you feel that's not accurate (no surprises), you need to elaborate more about what, then, defines a human, according to you. I agree, clearly an animal with human DNA is not human. But I don't agree with your definition either, because it just isn't accurate (as already demonstrated) and it's exceptionally vague. It's, bluntly put, a terrible definition.
"No, I do not think that genetic disorders will reduce any of the humanity of a person."
That's not true. Genetic disorders can cause chemical imbalances, which can lead to inability to tell right from wrong, propensity for violence and cruelty, and other symptoms of psychological disorder (among other potential problems). They are still a homo sapiens, but if you look up the word "human" in the dictionary, you don't get "homo sapiens" first. You get the qualities and characterisitics that make a person - human being an adjective first and a noun second.
Thus you can see the problems inherent in your definition. If it really all comes down to DNA, then you have to include those lab rats you turn your nose up at as monstrosities. If you go beyond DNA, then you start to get into issues of body structure and traits as well as higher-thought issues such as sentience, logic, and morality. Clusters of cells don't fit that definition.
I'm not attacking you, just trying to provoke some thought.
Welp atleast the vampires will be happy.
@smidget | Aug 20, 2008 1:30:31 PM
Thanks for your comments.
Re: definition. your comment shows that the definition will have to be refined as in many academic situations, but this does not mean that my idea of a human being is going to change.
These issues go beyond genetics. In the future we will be discussing which robots can or have to be accepted as human beings due to inclusion of human parts. (some are even starting to ask this question today)
As you are well aware, it is difficult to elaborate much on such issues on postings like these and it might not be the best place either.
All I wanted to do here is express my opinion.
This will be my last posting as I want to move to other things and articles.
RELAX PEOPLE about the STEM CELLS!
There were no embryos used to do this experiment/research. These stem cells were derived from the leftover U-Cords (umbilical cords) and afterbirth tissues of newborn babies, most especially O-Negative born babies. The physical afterbirth is LOADED with cord blood and stem cells! A woman does not take this kind of thing home with her after having a baby. No child was harmed/killed in the development of this medical and scientific application.
However, I STILL will not accept this blood. People who are Rh+Positive won't have any problems with this "created" Rh-Neg blood.
Ruth in Houston
To all the anti-stem-cell religious morons:
Let's get down to brass tacks: the reason why you are against stem cell research is because you believe that people (and embryos) have souls. You believe that your God infused each embryo with this eternal stuff that is the core of us all, that defines what we are, and that exists after we die (and before we are born? Who knows, two religious nuts never agree completely on any single issue).
In short: you're wrong, and you have no proof to back up your claims. Your belief in a "soul" is misguided. The idea of souls is something that humans created so they could convince themselves of the comforting notion that they will live on after they die. It's total BS with a capital B, and has no more basis in reality than the Tooth Fairy.
Either put up some real evidence that this "soul" exists, or shut up. And don't talk to me about faith. Faith is simply the excuse people give themselves to believe things in the face of bad (or nonexistent) evidence.
@some guy:
"If "God" created us with an intellect to know "Him" better and to know his creation better, then isn't discovering ways to improve our lives just discovering new aspects of His creation?"
There are many ways of improving one's life. Take theft, for example. There are many ways to improve one's life through theft. One can get themselves a big, new TV, that's one way of looking at theft, but then there's the concept of stealing food to keep one's child alive. Is this moral? There are valid arguments for both sides. Should this be considered a last resort? How hungry must the said child be before the line is crossed from immoral to moral (if that is possible)? Could it be that it is both moral, and immoral at exactly the same time? Stem cells are much like that - you take life in some, in order to learn to give life to others. Yes, we are learning a lot about the creation God placed us in. One lesson is that we are learning it is more difficult to know what is really right or wrong than we could ever have imagined.
@Rafeel Mathondo:
So, without a soul, you think then that humans now have no value? So I can harvest your organs, and not have to worry about the ethical issues with this? It's not about soul, it's about value, the value of a human life, and when that life starts. For many people it is easier to talk about this subject using the word "soul", but it is not necessary. Or do you not actually value human life, after "learning" that the soul does not actually exist? (can you prove that statement, too?)
@Devils' Advocate:
That's why I put in the caveat of requiring an ethical framework to operate within. - To teach us right from wrong. - It could be simply a evolutionary feature that has been passed along to us similar to altruistic behaviour that we find in bats or if you believe in God, it could be religion and the values of decency, morality, generosity, tolerance, forgiveness etc...that they espouse. Improving one's life through learning about God's creation through an ethical framework. by no means black and white answers but then again nothing in life is black or white except for math! :)
Also, why should the hungry child be forced to steal? Is it not upon us who are more fortunate to provide him/her with food in the first place? Isn't that the real lapse in morality?
@some_guy:
"Also, why should the hungry child be forced to steal?"
That is a different (yet still valid) argument, which in no way invalidates any decisions or moral problems regarding the original issue - do the ends justify the means?
The stem cells used come from artificial insemination. It's done outside of a woman. In a test tube so to speak. They harvest more eggs than they need for the procedure. Many of the embryos are never used. Some of them are "donated" to mothers who cannot have their own babies.The rest are are eventually destroyed. Around ten thousand every year in the United States.
These are what researchers would like to use.
They don't want to abort babies. They want to put those stem cells to use saving lives instead of being destroyed.
Let me see, I'd better consult my Bronze Age story-book before I form an opinion on this subject. What's that you say? The various gods of the Koran, Bible, and Torah didn't know about stem-cells, and therefore nothing is written about what to do or not do with them in those infallible texts? What a surprise: school-aged children today know more about the world than all the creator gods. Who would have guessed?
They can also take stem cells from breastmilk now too. Anyone want to volunteer harvesting those?
Oh, and stem cells are not harvested from aborted fetuses. They are harvested from left over embryos created for IVF. They would be thrown in the trash anyway. Dumbasses
UltimateXian and Orly? - you guys rock.
EDITOR: Betsy Mason | 
Another phenomenally beneficial step forward for us; let's hope religion doesn't raise its ugly head yet again to stand in the way of scientific progress as so frequently does.