backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by Asetha.. on Apr 23 at 1:37 AM


David Fluri  (Source: daylife.com)
The new suspension method allows stem cells to be collected in larger numbers instead of being scraped off of a surface

Researchers from the University of Toronto's Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering (IBBME) have created a new method for growing stem cells in larger quantities.

David Fluri, a postdoctoral researcher at IBBME, and Peter Zandstra, a professor at IBBME, have developed a new suspension method for growing stem cells, which allows for the collection of greater numbers of stem cells and increases the chance of obtaining viable cells in a cost-effective way.

Traditionally, stem cells are grown on surfaces that need to be scraped and are then differentiated from other kinds of cells to avoid cell death. However, this method doesn't produce enough viable stem cells from each culture, and the high cost to use this method doesn't match the results.

But now, Fluri and Zandstra have combined the stem cell creation process with a bioreactor, which provides stable environments for such processes. The cells were also grown in suspension, making the process more stable and safer for more viable cells.

By doing this, mouse cells were reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells, which can become any kind of cell. They were then changed into cardiac cells.

Fluri and Zandstra hope that this new technique can be used to eventually treat heart disease. It is designed to work with large scale processes and provide the quantity needed for successful stem cell research and drug development.

"This is an enabling technology," said Zandstra. "It takes something we showed we could do before at low efficiency but not at such numbers that could be used in manufacturing."

Source: Eurekalert



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 7:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
Since you put so much effort into this, let me answer your points.

1) We agree on this.
2) The Bible's worth is relevant to this discussion because it is the basis of Bush's beliefs and decisions with regards to this legislation. Obama, who also believes in the same Bible, reversed the legislation, because he knows that the Bible is worthless when it comes to this issue. Also, I'll link to the first part of the famous debate where it was conclusively shown that the Catholic Church has been an overall negative influence in the world, you can click on the links on the right to watch the rest and learn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W_yoeFJpsU

3) Obama also believes in the Bible, but he does not execute based on it, which is the big distinction here.

4) Human family does not include fetuses, and you're just playing with words here. Here's Science saying that it's around the third trimester where a fetus exhibits all the characteristics of a human:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=w...


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/10/2012 8:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
2 & 3) I fail to see your reasoning. By your standards UDHR should represent our morality standard. THOSE standards were formed on a consensus, driven by a group of people who agreed on rules based on THEIR belief system. The consensus chose the agreeable terms, but those terms were breathed into life by people willing to put forth their beliefs (which derived from somewhere).

In other words, the rules you want to apply were BORN of a group of peoples individual beliefs, many of which were directly/indirectly formed from influences by religion.

Motivation has no bearing in this conversation. I'd argue that Bush formed his opinion based on the UDHR, and you can't prove me wrong, because his actions were in line with the UDHR. You BELIEVE he made his decisions based on the Bible, but you have no proof, and it is just as credible that he formed his opinion based on the UDHR, not the Bible, since the two widley hold to the same tenets. You can't definitively state where his motivation came from. As a result, the Bible has no bearing on the topic at hand, because it may/or may not have had any direct impact on policy making. Your own admission that Obama believes in the Bible, yet made a different decision further improves my point. If they both BELIEVE in the Bible, and yet form differing opinions, then the Bible is not playing the crucial role you're trying to advocate it did.

I've already given you articles from the UDHR which support Bush's decision, so again, the Bible's perceived role in the policy making of the respective presidents in this matter is insubstantial, since it could easily be argued that they both formed their opinions off of the UDHR.

4) Again, by YOUR definition, including the 'consciousness' definition, fully born babies, or adults with sever retardation are not human. That's not me mincing words... that is a direct link to your definition.

Additionally, fundamentally, the whole premise behind that pleasant science blog entry, is not widely held as scientific fact, since it isn't actually fact. The post repeats a white paper based around an assumption and hypothesis about MinC (minimal consciousness). FYI: EVEN in the white paper, it is referred to as both an assumption and hypothesis at different times (see pages 410 and 414 respectively). While it's a nice starting point, it is currently not FACTUAL, and therefore is not scientifically admissible as grounds for your argument in this scientific policy making discussion.

You can argue with me all day long, but the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC definition for when LIFE begins is conception. This is not a question among scientists. The fact that it's actual a FACT is the whole reason behind the creation of the new term "Personhood" in the Pro-life/Abortion debate.

Being that the question of LIFE is not actually a question at all, it moves us to the next topic of where human rights should be applied... "Personhood" or Life. The standard we agreed to doesn't make the distinction.
Also "Personhood" HAS NO scientific definition, and thus is merely a term that is HIGHLY subject to the VALUE placed on LIFE.

Try again.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 11:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
1. UDHR has no religious basis and it's a consensus agreed upon by pretty much all the countries in the world as a moral standard on human rights.
2. Do you have any proof that Bush even READ the UDHR? I have proof that he's a religious nutjob: http://www.alternet.org/news/140221

Given what we know about Bush, it's infinitely more likely that he banned embryonic stem cell funding due to being an ignorant dumbfck prick, like all religious people.

3. I never disputed when life starts, which is a nice parallel you went off there to fill some paragraphs. We kill living beings for our benefit ALL THE TIME, where do you think that cheeseburger comes from?

What separates us from other animals is our brain and nervous system. The link I shows explicitly states when they form and it's not at conception. Another measure of "personhood" is looking at the earliest date when a baby can live on its own, which currently is 1 day less than 22 weeks.

Again, not at conception or birth, but 22 weeks later. Embryonic stem cells are obtained from blastocysts, which are just a clump of 50-100 cells, and only 5 days after pregnancy. The only arguments that a blastocyst is a person are religion based and therefore invalid.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 12:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
1) I don't dispute that the UDHR has no religious affiliation. I'm merely pointing out that the PEOPLE that decided on the articles of the UDHR formed their consensus based on shared beliefs. In other words, the UDHR did NOT form their moral beliefs, but rather their morality formed the UDHR. Their beliefs, naturally, were directly/indirectly created from religious influences. Even your own beliefs are influenced by religion, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

My purpose of pointing that out directly leads to your #2. The moral compass as defined by Christianity has a very nice/close parallel with the UDHR, even if they are completely unrelated from a theological point of view. This is not shocking given the impact that religion makes on everyone, even those that don't follow said religion. You have ZERO proof that Bush and Congress didn't make their decisions based on the UDHR, since his decisions meet the tenets of the UDHR and he effectively enforced said articles (knowingly or unknowingly). Since your standard IS the UDHR, it is not only foolish, but completely hypocritical for you to then criticize him for upholding the UDHR.

I don't have to prove where their decision stemmed from either. I merely have to show that YOU can't PROVE the contrary.

Also, whatever is "likely" about Bush is of zero concern, since "likely" is not "definitely" and therefore is supposition and conjecture, not FACT. As a science argument, you must discard this.

3) The UDHR doesn't protect animals (e.g. cows) Right to Life... it protects HUMAN Rights. And as such, when LIFE begins is essential to the argument... after all Article #2 of the UDHR EXPLICITLY counts Life as a right. It wasn't a parallel at all, but rather pointedly addressing articles from the UDHR. You can't use them for your Moral argument on one hand, and then discard the articles that don't serve your purposes on another. Either they are the standard or not. Which is it? Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

Also, "dependency" is not a valid argument, or else all living breathing 2 yr olds who are dependent on their parents for survival would not be considered human. Or any injured person connected to breathing machines would give up their Human Rights. This argument is a failure. Try again.

The link you showed me was based on an ADMITTED hypothesis (by the authors themselves!), not fact. If you actually read the white paper from which much of that links text was copied, you'd know this. Then again, you've already showed yourself to be a bigot and completely biased and close-minded. Perhaps it isn't terribly surprising that it appears you likely just read the headlines of media outlets that support your world view and then use them to give your view credibility, like a sheep.

Funny how much you sound like the "ignorant dumbfck prick" you accuse the 'religious' people of being.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 1:26:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, whatever is "likely" about Bush is of zero concern, since "likely" is not "definitely" and therefore is supposition and conjecture, not FACT. As a science argument, you must discard this.


1. Please tell me how my beliefs are influenced from religion, I'd love to hear about it.

2. Life isn't made up of ones and zeroes. Disregarding mathematics, even sciences do not deal in 100% certainties, only high likelihoods. Given that I presented very legit arguments on the kind of despicable person Bush is, my case as a far higher likelihood than yours, so I am right. Now if you ask Bush and get a different answer, I'll be happy to concede the point.

3. Dependency, including dependency with technological aid, is a valid argument, it's been used all around the world including the SCOTUS. Now if we someday get to a point where a human can be grown inside a machine that does the same thing as a mother's womb from a blastocyst, then it could be an argument.

4. How about telling me how do you regard the Bible (or any other "holy" book) in your own life. Something tells me you're stupid enough to believe in the crap that's in them. Please tell me what you think because it's directly going to affect if I bother responding to you or not. I do not like to waste my time with sub humans who believe that crap.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 2:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
1) Do you live in a bubble? You're saying you AREN'T influenced by the society you live in?

2) So you're saying that believing in science is an act of Faith, since it isn't FACTUAL, only likely? Well, then science sounds like religion to me. After all, a few hundred years ago, it was "likely" the world was flat. (Scientists all over the world just cringed when you said what you said)

Disregarding your 'faith', I'll use your own "likelihood' against you.

Bush is a professed christian, but Bush also was the LEADER of the Founding and Host nation of the United Nations which formed the UDHR. Furthermore, his actions directly uphold the articles contained within the UDHR. Finally, it was Congress, not Bush, that voted the Dickey-Wicker rider into the budget (Bush simply didn't veto it) and Congress is made up of people of all faiths and moral standards. So which is MORE LIKELY? That a bunch of people who may/may not believe in the Bible (but all of whom have sworn to uphold the UDHR), voted on something based on the Bible, NOT the UDHR?

3) Give me a SCOTUS case when 'dependency' has ever been used to decide if a Human Being loses their Human Rights. Give me a case.

4) Why does what I think about the Bible matter to this subject? I believe murder is wrong. Did I get that from the Bible, or did I get that from the UDHR? Both implicitly or explicitly agree with me. Perhaps I got the belief from Hinduism? Does it matter to the argument? Not at all.

I believe in the right to privacy. The Bible never really addresses the issue as far as I know, and yet I believe it. Did I get it from the UDHR, or perhaps the US Constitution? Does it matter? Does it have any bearing on what I think about the Bible, or vice versa? No.

The only tests that matters are ACTIONS held against the standard we're using (UDHR). That's the judgement that must be applied.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 5:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
1) I am smart enough to reject all the BS that's religion from my life, so I am not influenced by it at all.

2) No it's not an act of faith, since you can perform experiments and show real results. It's not a comparable leap of faith to go from 99.99% evidence to saying that it's 100% the case vs. 0% evidence (religion) to 100%. Therefore you are wrong.

UDHR was declared before Bush Jr was even born, just the fact that he got elected president in a country where people outside of a few states are 90% morons due to a crappy electoral college system does not mean anything.

3) Umm...really? How about Roe vs. Wade where viability is defined as the interim point at which the fetus becomes potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

4) It matters because belief in the Bible as anything more than a few philosophical guidelines, is the same as believing Batman/Superman exist. It indicated a level of mental development equal to one of a child.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 5:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am smart enough to reject all the BS that's religion from my life, so I am not influenced by it at all.


And yet you're foolish enough to believe your life isn't influenced by it. Hilarious.

quote:
UDHR was declared before Bush Jr was even born.


And...? How does that discount his living by it, especially given it was both his job and legal obligation to live by it?

The constitution was made before you were born. Do we not have to abide by it as well? The Likelihood is that the UDHR was drafted before you were born (or were a wee lad), and your that's your standard.

Furthermore, what about the fact that it was Congress, not Bush that placed the Rider? Nothing? have nothing to say?

quote:
Umm...really? How about Roe vs. Wade where viability is defined as the interim point at which the fetus becomes potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid


Give me another... one that involves YOUR standard (the UDHR), not the Constitution. Furthermore, give me one that says that viability = life, because Roe v Wade doesn't make that distinction.

quote:
It matters because belief in the Bible as anything more than a few philosophical guidelines, is the same as believing Batman/Superman exist


Prove it.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 6:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yet you're foolish enough to believe your life isn't influenced by it. Hilarious.

Prove it. I am not influenced by religion in any aspect of my life. I do not follow any, and I reject all of them. Unless you're going to twist words around and argue that rejection is a form of influence, which is BS by the way, you have no case.

Here's what Bush did:

President Bush announced, on August 9, 2001 that federal funds, for the first time, would be made available for hESC research. However, the Bush Administration chose to limit taxpayer funding to then-existing hESC cell lines, thereby limiting federal funding to research in which "the life-and-death decision has already been made". The Bush Administration's guidelines differ from the Clinton Administration guidelines which did not distinguish between currently existing and not-yet-existing hESC. Both the Bush and Clinton guidelines agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research that directly destroys embryos.

quote:
Give me another...

I gave you one and beat you fair and square, no more moving goal posts, you idiot.

quote:
give me one that says that viability = life, because Roe v Wade doesn't make that distinction.

I never said viability = life, since even a single cell is life. However Roe vs. Wade argues that viability = human. Let that sink into that cancerous brain of yours.

quote:
Prove it.

Batman/Superman are fiction, so are the events in the bible and the supernatural powers of Jesus. They are all fiction.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 8:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prove it. I am not influenced by religion in any aspect of my life. I do not follow any, and I reject all of them.


Do you believe in a God, or a supernatural force, or are you a "science guy" believing in evolution?

quote:
Here's what Bush did: [his administration announced something in 2001]...


So the Bush Administration pushed Congress to relax their standard, and you BLAME him?

quote:
I gave you one and beat you fair and square, no more moving goal posts, you idiot.
I believe, had you quoted me fully, that I asked you to give me another one that was made against YOUR standard (the UDHR), as opposed to the Constitution.

quote:
I never said viability = life, since even a single cell is life. However Roe vs. Wade argues that viability = human. Let that sink into that cancerous brain of yours.


Ah, but you see, Roe v. Wade DID say viability = life. At least, initially. Later, the Roe v Wade argument (in PlannedParenthood vs. Casey) was altered by stating part of the fundamental rights Roe protected was the right to DECIDE for ourselves the mysteries of life, and our own existence. This is important, because the FIRST distinction in Roe has been proven precisely FALSE. LIFE - HUMAN life, as a distinct and unique organism - has zero to do with viability, as has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven to begin at conception (and let us not forget that this whole conversation is about science, so this is important).

Casey fundamentally did NOT to apply a technical definition to what constitutes a Human, but rather placed a VALUE on Human life at various stages of it's life span, by letting the woman choose how she values that life. It determined that the VALUE of a woman's constitutional right to privacy trumped the VALUE of human life weighed by its viability and her morality.

(FYI: this is why it is still argued today, and ALLOWED to be argued.)

The PROBLEM with assigning VALUE is that it is highly subjective, and will be formed based upon an individuals own morality (and from which that morality stems).

At any rate the Roe argument does NOT apply here as a basis since it has the specific balance of the value of a Human Life against the Woman's Privacy (as it is directly impacted by that human life). In the case of hESC, the woman is removed from the equation. The value imposed upon the human being's life now has no other weight of measurement beyond its own significance.

The Government (as you've stated) should not be making philosophical or theological decisions. Since they can't juxtapose the value of the fetus's life against the value of the woman, their only recourse is to treat the life as it's own measurement, and as such, apply the Constitution (or in your case the UDHR) appropriately.

Anyway, the UDHR does not make a distinction between VALUE, or between Human Life and Human Being. Since that is your standard of choice, you must adhere to it or give me a proper example of where it DOES make the distinction.

quote:
... so are the events in the bible and the supernatural powers of Jesus. They are all fiction .


Again I say, prove it.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 11:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you believe in a God, or a supernatural force, or are you a "science guy" believing in evolution?

The probability of all organized religions in the world having ANYTHING to do with an actual god assuming such a god exists = 0.
The probability that god exists = 1/(infinity-1), which is the smallest positive real number.

Here's rest of the stuff that Bush did:
In April 2004, 206 out of 500 members of Congress signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported.

In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238-194 to loosen the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research — by allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors — despite Bush's promise to veto the bill if passed. On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too favored loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The Senate passed the first bill (Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act), 63-37, which would have made it legal for the Federal government to spend Federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. On July 19, 2006 President Bush vetoed this bill. The second bill makes it illegal to create, grow, and abort fetuses for research purposes. The third bill would encourage research that would isolate pluripotent, i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the destruction of human embryos.

In 2005 and 2007, Congressman Ron Paul introduced the Cures Can Be Found Act, with 10 cosponsors. With an income tax credit, the bill favors research upon non embryonic stem cells obtained from placentas, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, humans after birth, or unborn human offspring who died of natural causes; the bill was referred to committee. Paul argued that hESC research is outside of federal jurisdiction either to ban or to subsidize.[43]

Bush vetoed another bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which would have amended the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The bill passed the Senate on April 11 by a vote of 63-34, then passed the House on June 7 by a vote of 247-176. President Bush vetoed the bill on July 19, 2007.

On March 9, 2009, President Obama removed the restriction on federal funding for newer stem cell lines.

As you can see, he may have started an initiative, but then he vetoed progress and stifled research. This is due to his religious beliefs, and he's a POS.

Let's come back to Roe vs. Wade. According to UDHR and also our constitution, the value of each one of our lives is equal. We also all have a right to privacy. Now since the ruling says that a woman's right to privacy is more important than the life of a fetus up to its viability, that clearly means that the fetus is not considered to be a human, otherwise its life wouldn't be less important than a woman's right to privacy, until it's viable. So the viability is being used to determine if it really is a human worthy of the protections of the constitution or not.

A blastocyst, which is a lot removed from a viable or close to viable human fetus, and has not even undergone cell differentiation, is surely not a human being according to our laws. However Bush's laws (aka the Bible) say otherwise and he vetoed expanding stem cell research.

About the Bible, proving things do not work that way. I do not have to prove that the Bible is a work of fiction, you have to prove that it isn't. You have to prove that Jesus is a real supernatural being and all the other crap he did in the Bible, not the other way around. Your stories about Jesus have just as much credibility as my stories about a dragon in my garage. Both are equally (un)likely.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/11/2012 12:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, the infamous and subjective personhood argument. You do know that not all fetuses develop at the same rate? So your 22 week rule is just a line in the sand that you drew based on some non-objective principles that YOU think matter more than others?

You are just a clump of a few trillion cells. I don't measure the value of a human based on how many cells they contain. Moral freaks like you do, though, and it shows your true colors.

Nice straw man about religion, as if it has anything to do with the biology of human reproduction.

Nice link. Prepare yourself for more:

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2. "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."

T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."

Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

I could go on, but I hope by now you get the idea. You aren't arguing the science of human embryology, you are arguing about the attributed value of humans at a specific point in their development.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/11/2012 12:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
When does human life begin? Indisputably at conception. Peter Singer said this about it:

quote:
It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'human family', as it is entirely different than human species. Like produces like. A fetus is not some random species that magically and spontaneously becomes a homo sapiens, it is homo sapiens from conception. The only difference between a human zygote and you is a certain amount of time.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki