• 0

    gaijinfo

    Not as long as they don't come, Monty Python style, and ask for my stem cells while I'm busy watching TV.

  • -13

    cleo

    I have ethical concerns about anything that involves the deliberate mutilation and/or 'sacrifice of any living creature other than properly-informed and remunerated human adults.

  • 7

    Probie

    I have ethical concerns about anything that involves the deliberate mutilation and/or 'sacrifice of any living creature other than properly-informed and remunerated human adults.

    Stem cell research isn't just about using aborted foetus' anymore, you know.

  • 8

    SamuraiBlue

    IPS cells that Dr. Yamanaka was doing research leading him to recieve the Nobel prize this year has nothing to do with "sacrifiicing" other living creature and can be cultured on a petri dish.

  • -8

    cleo

    IPS cells that Dr. Yamanaka was doing research leading him to recieve the Nobel prize this year has nothing to do with "sacrifiicing" other living creature and can be cultured on a petri dish.

    Well the explanation of his work that I saw on TV showed mice that had been deliberately crippled being made to walk again through the injection of these iPS cells. Deliberate mutilation - check. And what do you think happens to the crippled mice (cured or otherwise) once the experiment is over? They are given a generous severance package and go to a retirement/care home for senior mice to live out the rest of their days in comfort? Sacrifice - check.

    Stem cell research isn't just about using aborted foetus' anymore, you know.

    No, they use living, sentient beings. At least the aborted foetuses have not yet developed consciousness (probably). Other ethical problems at play there, though.

  • 9

    Probie

    IPS cells that Dr. Yamanaka was doing research leading him to recieve the Nobel prize this year has nothing to do with "sacrifiicing" other living creature and can be cultured on a petri dish.

    Well the explanation of his work that I saw on TV showed mice that had been deliberately crippled being made to walk again through the injection of these iPS cells. Deliberate mutilation - check. And what do you think happens to the crippled mice (cured or otherwise) once the experiment is over? They are given a generous severance package and go to a retirement/care home for senior mice to live out the rest of their days in comfort? Sacrifice - check.

    Stem cell research isn't just about using aborted foetus' anymore, you know.

    No, they use living, sentient beings. At least the aborted foetuses have not yet developed consciousness (probably). Other ethical problems at play there, though.

    If you're against that, then I assume you use no medicines whatsoever, no make-up, and use no other toiletries. At all?

  • 2

    hoserfella

    cleo are you saying that you are against any and all animal testing?

  • -6

    cleo

    I assume you use no medicines whatsoever, no make-up, and use no other toiletries. At all?

    Medicines - you'd assume wrongly. But just because something has been 'tested' on animals, doesn't mean that the testing aided development of the product or guaranteed its safety, or was in any way necessary. Animal experiments have put a lot of drugs on the market that never should have been released and that were quickly withdrawn once their effects on humans became apparent. Use a new drug that has been 'thoroughly tested' on animals, and you become one of the first human guinea pigs. I prefer my medicines tested on people.

    Make-up and other toiletries - only those with 'No Animal Testing' marked clearly on the label. (Cosmetic testing is banned in the UK, hopefully the rest of the world will catch up sooner rather than later)

    hoserfella - Y E S

  • 1

    SamuraiBlue

    cleo

    To my undestanding any and all medicine approved by the FTA and/or any other national regulatory body mandates animal testing before it is approved for any advanced human testing.

    Any and all cancer durgs are first administered on test animals that had been grafted cancer cells and cultured before testing. Similar testing are done on all parts of the test animals such as blood thinners, anti-diabetic drugs and/or even OTC cold medicine.

    Rab rats are culture for the very purpose for testing much as domesticated animals harvested for human consumption.

  • -3

    cleo

    any and all medicine approved by the FTA and/or any other national regulatory body mandates animal testing

    Legally mandatory isn't the same as scientifically necessary. Animal testing does not make new drugs safe for humans.

    Rab rats are culture for the very purpose for testing much as domesticated animals harvested for human consumption.

    Sorry, that argument carries no weight at all when you're talking to a vegetarian.

    • Moderator

      Vegetarianism is not relevant to this discussion. The subject is stem cell research.

  • 0

    Fadamor

    Stem cell research isn't just about using aborted foetus' anymore, you know.

    To the best of my knowledge, stem cell research has never involved aborted fetuses unless you use the less common form of the word which applies to anything concieved but not born/hatched yet. For humans, the general cut off where an embryo is considered a fetus is 10 weeks after conception. There aren't many (if any) stem cells left after the embryo becomes a fetus because all the organs have begun to form already. The research that has drawn criticism from religious groups involved embryos. The religious groups object because removing stem cells from an embryo is a destructive process - the embryo is destroyed. While I don't hold to their beliefs that that is killing a human, I can see where the process just leaves a bad taste in even non-religious mouths.

    Dr. Yamanaka gets away from that whole issue because he found a way to revert "programmed" cells (like skin cells) in an adult back to the "unprogrammed" stem cell state. Then with the proper chemical signals, the new stem cells could be reprogrammed to grow as a different tissue or organ. An adult won't miss a few thousand skin cells (unlike an embryo) so the process becomes decidedly "non-destructive".

  • 0

    jessebaybay

    Re the stem cells, I do have a problem with it. However as someone pointed out about not all research is done on aborted foetuses. That kind of research is A O.K.

  • 2

    Probie

    Medicines - you'd assume wrongly. But just because something has been 'tested' on animals, doesn't mean that the testing aided development of the product or guaranteed its safety, or was in any way necessary. Animal experiments have put a lot of drugs on the market that never should have been released and that were quickly withdrawn once their effects on humans became apparent. Use a new drug that has been 'thoroughly tested' on animals, and you become one of the first human guinea pigs. I prefer my medicines tested on people.

    Still doesn't change the fact that all medicines are tested on animals, and so your complaint about stem cells is hypocritical.

    Make-up and other toiletries - only those with 'No Animal Testing' marked clearly on the label. (Cosmetic testing is banned in the UK, hopefully the rest of the world will catch up sooner rather than later)

    Even soap, washing powder, cleaning products? All will have been tested on animals to check for reactions.

    If a load of monkeys have to die for better medicine for humans: I have no problem with that.

  • 2

    SamuraiBlue

    cleo

    Legally mandatory isn't the same as scientifically necessary. Animal testing does not make new drugs safe for humans.

    Yes it is since the main concern for advance medical research is finding out if there are unforeseen side affects associated with the drugs they are doing research.This can only be tested through administering to lab animals. That is the reason why it is mandatory to do clinical trials on lab animal before going to the advance stage in testing on humans.

  • -3

    cleo

    Yes it is since the main concern for advance medical research is finding out if there are unforeseen side affects associated with the drugs they are doing research.This can only be tested through administering to lab animals. That is the reason why it is mandatory to do clinical trials on lab animal before going to the advance stage in testing on humans.

    Then how come so many rigorously-tested 'safe' new drugs are taken off the market when it becomes apparent they cause nasty unforeseen side-effects in humans that weren't apparent in animals?

    http://www.drugrecalls.com/

    The main reason it is mandatory to do trials on animals is that there is big, big money involved in the breeding of the animals and in the research grants to repeat ad nauseum tests that have already been done. The fact remains that no amount of testing on animals can guarantee or even indicate that a particular drug is safe for use by humans.

    • Moderator

      All readers back on topic please. The subject is stem cell research and its ethics. From here on, posts that do not refer to this will be removed.

  • -3

    cleo

    The promising thing about stem cell research and especially Yamanaka's reprogramming of skin cells back into stem cells is that there is no need/excuse now to use the animal models that are not applicable to the human condition; there is a virtually unlimited supply of human stems cells available to grow into organs on which drugs can be tested directly. If they can make me sticky sticking plasters that don't turn vast swathes of my skin into a red, itching disaster zone (like the ones we have now do) and that actually stay stuck (like mostly non-alllergenic surgical tape doesn't), I'd happily donate a few of my own skin cells free of charge. Mmm, that would be skin cells being used as skin cells though, no need for reprogramming......I suppose they could reprogramme the ones that were left over.

  • 0

    Probie

    Stem cell research is a great thing. Once it get's more funding and they can conduct human trials and we start seeing the benefits from what can be done, it will more than make up for and "ethical concerns".

  • 0

    davestrousers

    If you make the argument that animals are different from us and therefore we don't learn much them that can be applicable to humans, it seems contradictory to then say that stem cell research using mice is unethical based on the assumption that these animals feel or are aware or pain in anything like the same way humans are.

    @cleo

    Sorry, that argument carries no weight at all when you're talking to a vegetarian.

    If you play that card you better be a strict vegan as there's probably more pain and suffering caused in one day of global poultry and dairy farming than stem cell research will ever cause.

  • -4

    cleo

    it seems contradictory to then say that stem cell research using mice is unethical based on the assumption that these animals feel or are aware or pain in anything like the same way humans are.

    The argument isn't whether animals feel or are aware of pain in anything like the same way humans are (obviously they do, pain is nature's self-defense system, any animal that doesn't feel pain is going to be extinct in no time, duh). The argument is that it's self-defeating and dangerous (not to mention unnecessarily cruel) to test drugs intended for humans on animals that have different physical structures and don't naturally suffer from the human conditions they are supposed to treat. If you're going to create drugs to be used on humans, then you need to test them on humans, starting off with human tissue that can be replicated ethically using human stem cells obtained from consenting human adults. All the messing around with animals is a waste of time.

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    The argument is that it's self-defeating and dangerous (not to mention unnecessarily cruel) to test drugs intended for humans on animals that have different physical structures and don't naturally suffer from the human conditions they are supposed to treat. If you're going to create drugs to be used on humans, then you need to test them on humans, starting off with human tissue that can be replicated ethically using human stem cells obtained from consenting human adults. All the messing around with animals is a waste of time.

    Ignorance is bliss isn't it.

    There is still alot of stem cell research that needs to be done before going into human clinical trial which Dr. Yamanaka warned. One being that if stem cells are administered under wrong conditions they turns into cancer cells and not the desired cell types. The problem can only be solved through further research on lab animals. The alternative is either go straight to human testing or abandon any type of advance medicine research.Neither alternatives are acceptable so we'll probably keep on testing.

    @cleo

    What you need to understand is that complex organic chemical responses inside living animals does not occur the same as in a test tube and can not be replicated artificially in a lab without living subjects. That is why so many tests are done on lab animals.

  • -3

    cleo

    complex organic chemical responses inside living animals does not occur the same as in a test tube

    Nor the same as in a human, which is why reliance on animal testing is dangerous.

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    cleo

    Nor the same as in a human, which is why reliance on animal testing is dangerous.

    Approximation is require to be tested before certainty is evaluated. In other words if it kills rats they will certainly not administer it on humans.

  • 1

    hoserfella

    cleo - is it not worth the life of a rat to potentially finding the cures for

    Parkinson’s Disease Alzheimer’s Disease Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1) Birth Defects Spinal Cord Injuries Replace or Repair Damaged Organs Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a heart-transplantation in the future Stem cells may play a major role in cancer

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    I think this poll has been thoroughly skewed by the choice vs life crowd. I think there are some legitimate ethical concerns about stem cell research just as there are ethical concerns in many forms of science and medicine. I fully support the work being done with adult stem cells but I'm morally opposed to the use of human embryonic stem cells.

  • 0

    JapanGal

    This Dr. has done a wonderful thing. Lots of good things will come from it.

  • 0

    tkoind2

    If you can find anything in modern society that does not have a morally comprimised aspect, then I will be quite surprised. Stem cell research, medicine, the food supply, our cities and homes, our communities, our politics, our relgions all cause some degree of harm to someone or something. If we are morally outraged by all of this, then it is impossible for life on the planet to exist even at the animal level.

    This research offers great hope for people who suffer a great deal. We must be morally mature and sensitive to any harm done, but we must also weigh the good that these technologies provide and do our best to balance this consideration.

  • 0

    Onniyama

    Havent humans been doing battle with rats and mice for millenia? Why is there not an outcry against mousetraps and rat poison if people are so worried about the little critters? As for human embryos, I believe that a lot of them were taken from sperm bank type facilities. These samples are only kept so long and then they are disposed of. So if you are against testing on embryos, should you not be against sperm banks and artificial insemination? I just dont see how people can be against one thing and not the other. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please be consistent. This research will possibly lead to discoveries that can prevent a lot of pain and suffering and the early death of many people. I think the only unethical thing in this issue is to try and prevent the research.

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    stem cell research will bring many breakthrough outcomes of cure in medical field. I am all for this.

    I want Japan to move forward and shine in this field.

    when doing what is right and correct in humanity, Japan does not have to worry about trade barriers.

  • 0

    ReformedBasher

    @Cleo

    I don't agree with you but I respect your stance.

    The potential is an enormous benefit and many lives can be saved or made better.

  • 0

    WilliB

    I don´t see how anyone can not have "ethical concerns" about research that is based on harvesting human embryos for their material. If they manage to do their research without that, then no.

  • 1

    shinaykahn

    Depends how far are they willing to go...research without ethics can go terribly wrong.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Poll

View all

View all