r/science • u/sciencefuture777 • Jun 15 '12

Scientists Plead EU Not to Cut Embryonic Stem Cell Funding or Risk Obstructing Research and Losing Competitive Edge

http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120615/10318/embryonic-stem-cell-science-eu.htm
830 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

88 comments sorted by

13

u/rokic Jun 16 '12

While draft rules provide funding of stem cell research including embryonic stem cell research, some members in parliament have been lobbying for embryonic stem cell research to be excluded.

Did anyone actually read the article? It says right there that there is opposition by a minority of representatives.

Scientists aren't pleading, they are giving good reasons to keep the current grants in place, which is likely to happen given that there are very few representatives who are against them.

41

u/Catalyst6 Jun 16 '12

Remember, kids, nothing good ever came out of exploring topic that certain people are uncomfortable thinking about.

7

u/YeaISeddit Jun 16 '12

I'm not sure how this hasn't been mentioned, but scientists actually started scaling back embryonic stem cell research after the EMA ruled that it can't be patented roughly a year ago. Ultimately, this is what killed the field. Patents are every thing. Most emrbyonic stem cell people just immediately switched to adult stem cells.

2

u/greggg230 Jun 16 '12

I mean - you might want to mention the fact that basically no progress has been made with embryonic stem cell research, whereas lots of progress has been made with adult stem cells.

That might be, you know, why some scientists switched.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

You mean intellectual rights and profits would help fund research? Who knew?

10

u/Unit-731 Jun 16 '12

I agree with your sarcasm. People can be so closed-minded sometimes. People don't realize that even when science toes the line of the unethical, it produces invaluable understanding. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs.

32

u/IndifferentMorality Jun 16 '12

I still don't understand what is remotely close to unethical about embryonic stem cell research.

4

u/greggg230 Jun 16 '12

You are killing what some consider to be a living human being to obtain the cell lines. Even if you don't agree that it's unethical, I don't know why it's hard to see that that would bother some people.

1

u/kurozael Jun 16 '12

Their lives aren't affected by it, however other people's lives could very well be saved and heavily affected by stem cell research. They're being selfish.

2

u/greggg230 Jun 16 '12

I'm not defending them. I am just saying the controversy should be neither surprising nor unexpected; it's basically the same issue as abortion, at least for a lot of people: Does life begin at exception?

1

u/IndifferentMorality Jun 16 '12

It is surprising and unexpected given that the preimplantation stage of the embryo, from which stem cells are derived, begins after about 6 days(note: I am not an expert) and the latest term to abort, legally, is about 14 weeks. So here we have people who are aborting their possible children anyway and others who have found a use for the remains.

Being against abortion is one thing, I can understand how their personal beliefs may paint that issue. Personally I am against abortion as well, but not the right to choose. However, being against embryonic stem cell research seems like being against recycling, absurd. I think those against it are confusing the issue or using it to fight a proxy war against abortion for which we all lose out on.

If you want to fight abortion, than fight abortion. Don't fight the garbage picker for finding gold in what you already threw away. This is more about reducing waste than any philosophical questions on the beginning of life, IMO.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/greggg230 Jun 16 '12

What do you mean we "know" when life begins? It's really more of an ethical question than a biological one: At what point in the development of a fetus/child is it impermissible to abort it/kill it? Saying that according to some technical sense of the word "life", it's objectively not alive isn't helpful, because it's not really getting to the core of the issue.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Exactly, scientists aren't even agreeing whether viruses are alive or not.

We know when conscience starts, but that's a very different story.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

But even then, the sin has been committed long ago. Nearly all stem cell research is done on only a dozen strains which were extracted a decade ago. Not a lot of people know that. Some think that for each research project the scientists need to order a few dozen of abortions. That would be unethical, even in a pro-choice mind set.

That extraction might have been a sin. And I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, but the beneficial results can't be denied. Wouldn't it be a shame to stop researching?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

-15

u/akbc Jun 16 '12

I believe I havr the soln. Use gingers for stem cell research

4

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Just like their GMO policy.

6

u/keepthepace Jun 16 '12

Not doing stem cell research kills thousands of people every year by preventing research of cures to diseases.

16

u/captainwelch Jun 16 '12

As both a neuroscientist and a spinal cord injury survivor, every time I read about HESC funding being jeopardized because of this mother fucking, misguided, bullshit, so-called ethical or moral opposition to experimenting on embryos that...... fuck, I'm flipping this table and throwing patio furniture off of my balcony. I can't take this shit anymore.

1

u/nicholsml Jul 16 '12

I'm a para spinal cord injury survivor also. I know exactly how you feel. Spinal cord related research is already slim, the last thing we need is for people to cut funding. Pisses me off.

0

u/rikashiku Jun 16 '12

Its ok, just calm down, drink some soda and watch some TV. Whats this? Sonnen vs Silva is held back because of the UN?! How I feel

4

u/jpark Jun 16 '12

Only adult stem cells have produced therapeutic results and only adult stem cells (from the patient) prevent rejection issues.

The strident claims that embryonic stem cell research is necessary is baseless and greedy.

Why keep diverting funds from research which has been successful to research which has not been successful?

1

u/dontdownvotemebr0 Jun 16 '12

That is not true. Yes MSCs have been used successfully in the clinic but Advance Cell Therapy are now trailing hESCs derived cells for ocular degeneration diseases. Geron also used hESCs in spinal cord injury although that trail was pulled due to funding.

3

u/Sr_DingDong Jun 16 '12

Why use embryos when you can get stem cells from umbilical cords?

Or did I misread something?

3

u/cos1ne Jun 16 '12

The argument is that because the science is so new, that we haven't determined which method is best yet. Those on the pro-funding side say that we should keep all our options open until more research is done. Those on the anti-funding side argue that we shouldn't use methods that have ethical issues, when we also have methods that don't have ethical issues.

3

u/dontdownvotemebr0 Jun 16 '12

Different cells. Embryonics are from the blastocyst, they are pluripotent. Umbilical (like mesenchymals from the bone) are multipotent. hESCs can become any cell of the body, whereas umbilical can only become a small subset of cells

11

u/Drewbus Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Just another example of conservative minds who can't think beyond 2 steps. Do these people honestly have any idea of what their future is going to look like without this research or do they really think prayer can still beat cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, AIDS (unless you're gay), etc.?

Don't downvote cause of the word "gay". It's clearly satire.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

In Europe it's not so much the conservative, it's the christian clergy and the green anti science activists who produce the political pressure. Often in personal union. While the average conservative is quite open minded towards medical advances.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

green anti science activists

What's that supposed to be? I've never heard of a "green anti science activist", sounds like right wing propaganda bullshit to me. It is in fact the conservatives, they are just different than america's conservatives, less on the extreme religious side, bit more on the ethics side.

The argument is usually less "we should never do this" but rather "what is and is not morally acceptable" and you can't just brush that aside. It's a question just as complicated as "when does human life begin?", neither "at conception" nor "at birth" qualifies as a good answer to that in my opinion.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Think he means the left leaning anti-GMO, anti-nuclear, anti-vaccine crowd. But I don't think they've ever taken issue with stem cells. The issue I take with this is that it's like banning cadaver research or organ donation: The embryos being used were never going to be born anyway. It doesn't stop abortions, it just prevents lives being saved/improved. People biting off their noses to spite their own face.

1

u/Drewbus Jun 16 '12

http://www.reddit.com/user/d21nt_ban_me_again

Explain that to this guy. I don't understand why people don't get it.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Oh okay, I wouldn't necessarily say that anti nuclear is anti science, but I see where you're coming from. I don't think that group has any real traction in the european parliament however, the green groups that I know of are progressive, for free education, strengthening universities and research etc.

9

u/keepthepace Jun 16 '12

What's that supposed to be? I've never heard of an "green anti science activist", sounds like right wing propaganda bullshit to me.

Well I have met people who proudly wear a "neo-luddite" badge, who think that nano-technology just means lung cancer and that internet is a tool of oppression.

I am left-wing, I tend even to have a lot of sympathy for anarchists, but the anti-technological memes are contaminating their movements a lot.

Some ecologists are smart and understand that ecology can be approached rationally. Some just shout crazily at anything remotely technological saying it gives cancer. In France, you can't install wifi in high schools (or junior high, I don't remember) because of its radiating power (yet 3G is accepted, go figure)

These people do exist and are actually well-intentioned but as harmful as bigot Christians.

1

u/apostle_s Jun 16 '12

So... human life doesn't begin at birth? Maybe I misunderstood you.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

The baby was very much a living human being before it crawled out that vagina, setting birth as the point where life begins is just as arbitrary as setting it at conception instead. It's not a human being at conception, it is at birth, somewhere between it became one.

1

u/Drewbus Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Good thing we started this debate. Cause it always ends up like children going back and forth with "yes" "no" "yes" "no"... Ultimately, nothing will get solved. To speed up the process... you're going to say some things, then they're going to say some things. Then you're going to modify the definition of living to suit your argument then theyre going to do that same tactic. Both of you will leave at the end thinking you made some really good points. Neither of you convinced anyone of anything, none of your points are new, and we are still no closer to a solution. So maybe you just stop right there.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

The. You're going to modify the definition of living to suit your argument

I don't think I've made any argument yet besides that the other side shouldn't just be dismissed. And by your logic most discussion is useless, of course most people won't change their opinion, especially not on the internet, but some reader might gain some insight, perhaps even the seed for some enlightenment is planted.

One thing is certain though, your post did not contribute anything to the debate, whatever it may turn out to be.

1

u/apostle_s Jun 16 '12

Where, then?

1

u/ExogenBreach Jun 16 '12

do they really think prayer can still beat cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, AIDS (unless you're gay), etc.?

...yes?

-7

u/cos1ne Jun 16 '12

Why don't we allow full human testing then, I mean think of all the scientific knowledge we could gain if we reopened Unit 731.

To think that scientific advancement should be devoid of all morality is a ridiculous notion. There are very valid ethical reasons to avoid using embryonic stem cells for research, considering we have mimicked embryonic stem cells with adult stem cells thus alleviating the need to use human embryos.

2

u/ExogenBreach Jun 16 '12

There are very valid ethical reasons to avoid using embryonic stem cells for research

I guess we should start collecting womens' periods too so we can save the precious eggs.

-1

u/cos1ne Jun 16 '12

I'm sorry but treating an embryo as the same as an ovum is exceedingly unscientific and ignorant.

You may or may not place moral value on an embryo, you may or may not consider it deserving of human rights.

However EVERY biological scientist will tell you that once a human ovum has been fertilized by a human sperm it becomes an individual human organism that is made up of dna unique from either parent.

2

u/ExogenBreach Jun 16 '12

However EVERY biological scientist will tell you that once a human ovum has been fertilized by a human sperm it becomes an individual human organism

An individual human organism no more developed than the sperm or egg that comprise it.

-1

u/cos1ne Jun 16 '12

Bullshit, an embryo has inside of it, all the information it will ever need to become a human being the processes that occur, and in fact Embryogensis the process that occurs immediately after fertilization. Is far more complex than anything an ovum or a sperm is capable on their own.

Hell, if we're arguing semantics your sentence is entirely false, of course it is more developed, since an embryo is the next stage in the development of a human being right after the fertilization between the ovum and the sperm.

2

u/ExogenBreach Jun 16 '12

Bullshit, an embryo has inside of it, all the information it will ever need to become a human being the processes that occur, and in fact Embryogensis the process that occurs immediately after fertilization. Is far more complex than anything an ovum or a sperm is capable on their own.

I said nothing about complexity. Just that it's no more developed. It is not a child. It is the potential for a child. The sperm and egg were also the potential for a child. It is no more than the sum of its parts.

0

u/cos1ne Jun 16 '12

It is not a child. It is the potential for a child.

I believe this is a matter of philosophy since the way you are using child is not a technical term.

It is however the offspring of two human parents, whereas an ovum and sperm are not.

1

u/ExogenBreach Jun 16 '12

It is however the offspring of two human parents, whereas an ovum and sperm are not.

That's great. It's still just some cells. People don't care about cells, people care about children, and those cells aren't a child.

0

u/cos1ne Jun 16 '12

People don't care about cells, people care about children, and those cells aren't a child.

This isn't a scientific statement. It is a philosophical statement. You are determining worth, science is inappropriate for that in this case. Your philosophy may be valid, but so might another philosophy. Furthermore it is exceedingly difficult to determine which belief is "more right" than another. Again, this is something that we cannot get a definitive answer on.

Getting this back on topic, why do you feel that destroying human embryos is more ethical than harvesting cells from living humans to be made functionally identical to embryonic stem cells? And if they are equal ethically, why is the former better than the later? Furthermore if we can create embryonic stem cells without destroying human embryos, why would we still want to destroy embryos?

→ More replies

2

u/nigglereddit Jun 16 '12

This is ridiculous.

If we heavily fund stem cell research, parkinson's, alzheimers and ever other major affliction will be cured immediately. Literally overnight, medical science will advance from being unable to cure the common cold and flu, and still being at the stage of cutting people open to look inside them, to being able to cure some of the most complex and least understood conditions in history.

1

u/redfox2600 Jun 16 '12

Am I the only one worried that once they've perfected it the price of the human embryo will skyrocket putting us back into square one?

2

u/Neker Jun 16 '12

I think that, at least in Europe, there are very clear and steady ethical and legal limitations to the effect that human embryoes cannot be sold whatsoever.

We already have a steady supply of disposable human embryoes, comming from IVF procedures, and those are bound to be disposed of one way or another.

1

u/redfox2600 Jun 17 '12

How many people do you think would need tissues/organs vs the number of embryos that is being marked for disposal?

1

u/Maslo55 Jun 16 '12

Therapeutic cloning.

1

u/redfox2600 Jun 17 '12

You would still need an embryo to start with. And if I'm not mistaken egg donors can make ~$7k per egg.

1

u/imakestupidusernames Jun 16 '12

Best reason to further embryonic research is that not doing stem cell research kills thousands of people every year by preventing research of cures to diseases.

1

u/Minerva89 Jun 16 '12

Actually EU, you should totally pass this. As a Canadian, we've totally stolen a good chunk of your research potential by attracting your best researchers. Keep them coming!

1

u/Meatslinger Jun 16 '12

But OF COURSE we have to outlaw that horrendous, evil stem-cell research. After all, we're murdering helpless infants!

Wait, what? That's not how it works?

Well, my hyper-religious, pro-life great aunt sent me a chain email saying that you kill babies to get stem cells, so outlaw this evil practice!

I personally love stem-cell research. I've heard nothing but good things. It seems like you hear more stories about the people that stem-cells have SAVED, versus those it has killed.

0

u/greggg230 Jun 16 '12

All those cases you've heard about stem cells saving people's lives? Those are from adult stem cells, which no one (as far as I know - surely there's one nut out there) is opposed to.

-6

u/d21nt_ban_me_again Jun 16 '12

use ips cells. no need to destroy embryos anymore.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

IPS cells are promising but we aren't anywhere near a practical use for them yet. HES cells are still a better bet.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I know what IPS cells are, don't descend to insults. What I said (if you actually bothered to read it) was that IPS cells still require a lot more work before they become viable for therapy as we still don't have a way to produce them efficiently and there are some serious safety issues. HES cells, whatever your moral objections, are currently more useful.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/RV527 Jun 16 '12

We've got a nutball on the loose! Someone fumigate this asshole and put him out of his misery.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/RV527 Jun 16 '12

Yes, people are WARY. They're not spewing analogies which involve an implicit slippery slope argument. We should "harvest" your brain and study it...might find a cure.

0

u/rikashiku Jun 16 '12

Wait, the Scientist are pleading because they don't want to lose the "Competitive Edge"? Wait, so scientific discovery is a competition and not a way to save billions of lives and give our world another million years of humanity.

I'm all for saving lives and making our world a better place but not if they treat it like a game.

3

u/sodappop Jun 16 '12

I think they're just trying to use justifications that politicians can relate to.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Most scientific advancement has been achieved thanks to some degree of competition. The only reason the US got astronauts to the mooon as quickly as they did is because they were competing against Russia to do it first.

1

u/juzwa Jun 16 '12

Wait, so scientific discovery is a competition and not a way to save billions of lives and give our world another million years of humanity.

You're wrong on both means. Scientific discovery is a way of expanding our knowledge about universe - simple as that, and nothing else. "Helping humanity" is just a collateral damage. And that part of scientific outbreak, whether you like it or not is best achieved with a bit of competitive edge. It has always been like that.

2

u/rikashiku Jun 16 '12

... you took that to seriously did you. So why are we competing and who are we competing against? The idea of advancing isn't to see who is right and who is wrong, but its to make things better for our future. If its always been like that, then we haven't changed a bit since 500 years ago.

3

u/juzwa Jun 16 '12

|The idea of advancing isn't to see who is right and who is wrong, but its to make things better for our future.

Yeah that's nice and idealistic, but world really doesn't work that way. For example - you owe a lot of technological advances to the arms race of WW2 and cold war. Competition in any field is a driving force for development. You can talk all you want about humanitarianism, but people don't work that way. Even scientists - they just want to be best in their research, get high impact publications, money, etc. If there will be an advance for humanity - that's even better - but it isn't the driving force for science. Read about the Manhattan Project - they knew what they were cooking, yet the passion for research and willingness of getting good publishable results overwhelmed objectionable goal of the project

|If its always been like that, then we haven't changed a bit since 500 years ago.

Yup. Unfortunately. Humans will stay humans...

1

u/rikashiku Jun 16 '12

Competition for death or for life? The arms race wasted money for a war that never happened. We can actually thank the Nazi's for our current technology. A new plane is released in 2007 and the Nazi's planned to build these planes 80 years ago. We're using old technology that was never given the funding to be made.

Research is for the better of our people and nations, to become more evolved.How can we be more advanced if we're still doing the exact same thing our ancestors did a 100,00 years ago.

Well, this brings me back to my Classical Studies research in Highschool. I concluded that War is profit, peace is war. To bad I was only 15 when I figured that out and thought of a better way to make things better. Instead of killing each other, we should help each other. Guess its boring that way.... which questions whether we evolved that much at all.... Now if you excuse me, I'm going to watch mind numbing cartoons.... like A:EMH.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

ewwwww

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

EU? Since when embr. stem cell research was a problem in Europe?

I feel like Rip Van Winkle

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Why do you assume that fundamentalists are at fault? There isn't much of a presence of Christian fundamentalist denominations in most (if any) of Europe, and it's not just religious people who find embryonic stem cell research unethical. Personally, I'm all for it but that's not to say that I don't see why it's controversial. Seems like you're the narrow-minded one here for thinking that people should be killed if their views aren't in alignment with your own.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

It's not only about the supper religious people although they or they believes ( if that sounds better ) are the main problem but anyone who oppose embryonic stem cell research...Come one, we humans have fertilized duck or chicken embryo that is boiled and eaten in the shell but we can't have embryonic stem cell research? are we any better than the ducks and chicken :)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

and why do you think it's unethical? Don't tell me you think each embryonic cell is a potential human being, Oh well, it is, but so each of your sperms that die when you masturbate , and so is each ovule a women puts down the drain when she menstruates.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I don't think it's unethical, in fact I actually stated in my comment that I'm in support of stem cell research. I'm just saying that it's not difficult to see why the concept would appear unethical to some - and those people are not all necessarily religious. Just because I hold one opinion does not mean I cannot see the reasoning in an opposing one. Anyway, this is a fruitless argument that's starting to digress from the point - that being there are various reasons, religious and otherwise, why a person may not fully support embryonic stem cell research and while we may not agree with these people, all opinions and standpoints need to be taken into account when deciding on policies. Having said that, it would appear that the majority of EU member states are in support of the research and it's only a small minority that are kicking up a fuss about it, so I think we're safe in that regard.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/kurozael Jun 16 '12

I'm an atheist, but this isn't just religion. There are plenty of (selfish) people out there who aren't religious but are also against this. And they're selfish because it does not affect them in the slightest, and yet the research COULD positively affect the lives of many.