Talk:Stem cell controversy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Why is there a debate about embryonic stem cells?

Are there some characteristics which distinguish cord blood stem cells from embryonic stem cells? If not, then couldn't both sides of the "debate" just agree to use cord blood stem cells and get on witH their lives? It appears that totipotent cells are available from the umbilical cord [1]. Are embryonic stem cells less expensive per cell? Can the embryonic cells be used in research that the cord cells cannot be used in? I'm not trying to advocate a position here, but rather to play Devil's advocate. This article should address this issue, because a "debate" between two alternatives doesn't have much merit if there is a vastly preferable third option. - Connelly 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to harvest cells from aborted embryos anyway ? Couldnt cells be donated for the purpose from miscarried embryos or stillborn babies ?

144.226.230.36 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)I would like to provide a response to the above question: "Couldn't cells be donated for the purpose from miscarried embryos or stillborn babies?"

Response: A miscarried, or spontaneously aborted, embryo, of the level of development which is appropriate for stem cell harvesting (embryo aged only days), would likely go unnoticed even by the woman who miscarried. The miscarried embryo would be passed from the body during the menstrual cycle, the only signs to the woman may be as small as a slightly heavier flow of blood. Even if the embryo could be discerned from the menstrual blood itself, the idea of collecting such material in a sterile environment is impossible. The possibility for obtaining a spontaneously aborted embryo for stem cell research is of no import.

Regarding stillborn babies, it is implied that a 'stillborn baby' is no longer an embryo, but has rather developed to the point of being considered a fetus. A fetus has no more use as a source for stem cells, as the stem cells the fetus once held, as an embryo, would by then be differentiated.

Rewrite

There are many things that should be fixed in this article. I'm going to make many major edits; if you don't like, disagree with, or are unsure of these edits, revert and we will discuss.

Some problems:

The intro is wordy and redundant.
Blastocysts section not relevant.
There's too much pseudo-philosophical language about "objectification" and "feelings" and "individuals."
The National Policy Debates section lists a dozen countries conducting stem cell research but doesn't include the US!
The term "stem cell" is incorrectly used in place of "human embryonic stem cell".
The Policy Debate section incorrectly states that US federal funds cannot be used to support human embryonic stem cell research! It's very unfortunate that the entry is flat out wrong in this respect when you consider that the majority of people reading it are probably most interested in that specific point.

--Herb West 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

I agree with you, the article needs considerable revision. The blastocyst section is irrelevant. The 'national policy section' isn't very good. And the terminology used needs consideration. However, I'm not sure that you are correct to single out eSCR as being the only controversial aspect relating to SCR. In fact, controversy surrounds many aspects relating to SCR. Controversy surrounds human, cord-blood and embryonic SCR. For instance, medical researchers in every field have hyped the potential of their research in order to secure funding - others have deemed this unethical because it falsely raises people's expectations. Medical researchers in all areas have conspired to label opponents of SCR as being luddites, opposed to progress. This is a crude representation of the dialogue that is taking place. Moreover, a variety of duplicitous rhetorical strategies and pictorial representations have been utilised by the pro-research lobby in order to secure funding in several areas of this research. Thus, whilst I agree that the article requires considerable attention and embryonic SCR is indeed the most controversial aspect of SCR, eSCR is not ‘the only’ controversial aspect of the research.--Nicholas 12:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also a controversy surrounding the use of human stem cells and animal cloning.--Nicholas 12:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sections 2 and 3 seem a bit one-sided to me.--Zetsumei 12:22, April 2006

My rewrite proposals

This article requires considerable revision. I'll just detail some of my thoughts at the moment and leave my comments open to discussion.

The article is currently US-centric. This needs to corrected by detailing a more accurate portrayal of the dialogue - worldwide.
The article is currently policy-centric. This can be corrected by included a detailed discussion of the 'moral', 'social' and 'ethical' issues.
The article should include information relating the language used in the debates surrounding SCR.
The article should avoid portraying the controversy in terms of binary opposites, i.e. popular representations of these debates are often framed in terms of absolute opposition between 'science' and 'religion'/luddites - as though there was no room for middle ground or contradictory positions. This undermines the true extent of the dialogue that is taking place and the sheer diversity of opinions on the subjects under discussion.
The above discussion and recent edits have made it clear that the article needs to proper distinguish between the controversy surrounding embryonic SCR, and associated controversies surrounding SCR with animal cells, controversies surrounding hype, and other such controversies.

What do y'all think? --Nicholas 20:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There exists a relatively large body of social science literature in this area, which we can use to provide the necessary basis for these changes. --Nicholas 21:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We might also want to include a section relating to SCR and fraud in light of the controversy surrounding Hwang Woo-Suk? --Nicholas 23:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

hESC

What is hESC? I think a lot of people would appreciate somebody actually defining that term before simply sticking it in the article assuming that everybody knows what it is.

It means Human Embryonic Stem Cells.

Vandalism

oops, I waited too long on the edit page and then forgot to deleate it --Zach 00:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm teribly sorry. I undid the vandalism again. --Zr2d2 18:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Other types

Is there controversy over the usage of other stem cells, other than embryonic or the opposite, a call to use them? If so, that should be included here. I have a few reference from Ireland/EU that I'll add this week when I get time, but none from the USA. Maeve

This is true, I didn't see anything about using adult stem cells instead of embryonic ones, and I think that is a relevant point in the article. Cloud13 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Impercise Language Creeping Back Into the Article

I have modified the following statement in the article due to very imprecise language that adds to the misunderstanding about this topic:

But due to their own ethical dilemas and the federal ban on stem cell research, many couples are unable to make a "dispensation decision," and as a result the number of frozen embryos has grown to an estimated 500,000.

Why? Well, there is NOT a "federal ban on stem cell research." This statement is just not true and it has been discussed over and over again in the various changes to this topic. Yes, I know that the the many, many stem cell articles just started out as one little stem cell article, but the discussion on that original stem cell page still applies. Let's go over it again for future reference: (1) "stem cell research" includes (a) adult stem cell research, (b) cord blood stem cell research, and (c) embryonic stem cell research. (2) There research being conducted in ALL three fields right now. There is NO BAN. Researchers can find private money to do anyone of these areas or all three. They are NOT banned. That is a myth created by the hype that surrounds this area. (3) Private money can fund all three types. (4) Private money is currently funding all three types. (5) Federal money can fund ALL three types. (6) Federal money is only funding two of the types right now; however, it is legal for the federal money to go to embryonic stem cell research if only the embryonic stem cell lines in existence on a certain date are used. So please do not use this phrase ("federal ban on stem cell research") it is imprecise and it is hype and this is Wikipedia, an organization that attempts to be neutral, it is NOT Mother Jones, which does NOT attempt to be neutral. --BballJones 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

More Imprecise Language Attempting to Take Hold

I edited the following sentence from the article because it is chucked full of imprecise and misleading wording:

Supporters point out that critics of stem cell research don't discuss prohibiting in vitro fertilization, which leads directly to the creation and destruction of thousands of embryos each year[2].

This sentence is supposedly supported by the Washington Post article. But if you read the Washington Post article, the Washington Post article does NOT state that "thousands of embryos" are destroyed "each year." It does NOT state that at all. What it does state is quoted below:

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of the embryos but which many scientists think has enormous potential to develop ways to repair organs and fight disease, say there are so few adoptions that thousands of embryos will be discarded if they are not used for research. Even if such adoptions were to increase manyfold, "it will not solve the question of what happens to the leftover embryos," said Michael Manganiello, senior vice president of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation in Washington.

This wording comes directly from the article. It states that proponent argue hypothetically that IF "there are so few adoptions that thousands of embryos will be discarded if they are not used for research." That is a hypothetical point, not a fact. As a matter of fact there is a Mother Jones article that was recently linked to in the article that specifically states:

[D]octors are, at a certain point, technically free to dispose of abandoned embryos. But many are reluctant to take that step. They are terrified that at some point a patient will come back and sue them for—well, for something. . . "Nobody does it [destroys abandoned embryos],” says Alan DeCherney, the editor of Fertility and Sterility and a reproductive endocrinologist who is now at the National Institutes of Health. “It’s a hot topic. People think the risk of holding them is less than the risk of destroying them.” The Mother Jones article is written by a Washington Post reporter.

This quote makes it very clear that embryos are NOT being destroyed, but actually there are more and more being held in limbo in fertility clinics. This article is getting skewed in a non-NPOV way. The underlining newspaper article does NOT back up the claims of the Wikipedian that skewed the article's point. --BballJones 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Thinks for clarifying that destruction doesn't happen to all unused embryos. However, this controversy section is leaning away from NPOV. BballJones addition "to support their claim that an embryo is not human life" is false. Supporters of embryonic research recognize there are 23 pairs of chromosomes making the blastocycst capable of becoming a human. The distinction is whether it has the same legal rights as a baby. --Ksargent 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, however, what I pointed out, from the left-wing Mother Jones article, is that destruction of embryos hardly happens at all. Also, on the other topic, if the argument is about whether a blastocycst has the same legal rights as a baby then there would not be an argument about partial birth abortion. But clearly there is an argument over partial-birth abortion. There are tons of groups and individuals that want to keep partial-birth abortion, as Hillary Clinton, safe and legal. So, if the debate was really about the legal protections for a blastocycst with the 23 chromosomes then I could understand your argument, but that is NOT where the argument is in America, at least. The debate is about where does human life begin and it cannot be narrowed down in a simple little statement as whether the blastocycst "has the same legal rights as a baby" because clearly there are many, many embryonic stem cell supporters who believe that giving birth to the child and then ripping open the child's head and sucking out the internal organs with vacuum, in the last day's of the mother's pregnancy is not an action that should be stopped by legal restrictions. There are many, many esc research supporters who believe that action should be forever "safe and legal." So no it is NOT about whether blastocycst should receive the same legal protections of a baby, that is an oversimplification. --BballJones 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You've widened the scope of debate here: 1) When does human life begin? 2) What rights do women have? 3) What rights do the unborn have? 4) What type of abortion should be legal? 5) When should abortion be legal? 6) When should it be restriced? 7) Should embryonic stem cell research be legal? 8) Should embryonic stem cell research receive federal funding? Too compare partial birth abortion to embryonic stem cell research is a red herring. PBA occurs in the fifth month of pregnancy or later, when the fetus has a well developed nervous system. And just as you claim, "many, many embryonic stem cell supporters" support partial birth abortion; I direct you to the pro-life Republicans, who just passed a bill supporting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. -- Ksargent 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I've widened the debate here. That is what the Talk Page is for--to discuss the topic of the article. I did NOT however widen the scope of discussion in the article itself. There is a huge distinction. I am not trying to impose my view on the article; I'm just trying to explain why some of the edits to the article do not make sense. I was trying to make the point, I did it quite well, that all of this talk of science in the article is to divert attention from the underlining debate. Pro-Life supporters are NOT the only groups that disagree with Esc res. There are many scientists that disagree with it on other grounds, so the attempts to treat the destruction of the embryos as simply as a medical procedure that ALL scientists agree with is disingenuous. All I am saying is if there are going to be edits to the article then they need to be precise and accurate and I was not seeing that. See the example above where someone stated that "there is a Federal BAN on stem cell research." That just seems like hysterical hyperbole to me. I would like to ask the hundreds of scientists in the U.S. that are currently working on stem cell research if that particular edit was accurate or not. I think that they would laugh. See here: Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds --BballJones 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Destruction of Embryos

I am going to edit the following sentence because it does not tell the whole story, only half right: Since a blastocyst can be taken from unused blastocysts leftover from couples' attempts at in vitro fertilization, proponents point out that it is a couple's choice on whether to allow medical research. This sentence does not make sense. Families that are going through in vitro can do anything that they want with the embryos, including having them completely destroyed. Of course, the couple can choose to destroy the embryo. That is not the issue. The issue is whether U.S. taxpayer's money (NIH funding) is going to be finance that destruction. So the sentence needs to be modified where it makes sense (and I honestly have no idea what the point was), so I have no other choice but to delete. Where is the citation for this comment?? Or this original research? --Getaway 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Okay, the very first sentence of the previous version read 'current research techniques usually result in the destruction of early-stage embryos'. This is misleading on a number of fronts, not least because current research techniques necessarily require the destruction of a human embryo and also because this sentence echoes the medicalised interpretation of an embryo, through use of the phrase "early-stage embryos". The second sentence reads "Thus, the stem cell debate has divided the ‘pro-life’ movement into two camps". This is also misleading because opposition towards eSCR cannot be strictly divided into either of the two camps described. Presenting opposition in this way would seem to deny the true extent of the dialogue and the multiplicity of differing perspectives. Following on from that, recent edits referred to "pro-life groups, like the Catholic church" and then goes on to associate, the social scientist, Sarah Parry with the 'pro-life' ideas which are discussed. I could point out several further discrepancies, but I think this will suffice for the moment. I am going to revert the article back to the previous version by myself, for the second time today. --Nicholas 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV for Controversy surrounding embryonic stem cells

This section does not follow Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV). It is biased toward opponents of human embryonic stem cell research, has several misleading statements, numerous errors, and fails to clearly distinguish between particular points of controversy.

(1) the controversy is not over embryonic stem cells, it is over human embryonic stem cell research.

I think everyone is aware of this but, if you feel that it's important, you are welcome to change it. Indeed, the words "human embryo" are used on several occasions in this section, so I don't see a problem here.--Nicholas 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(2) there is controversy over:

terminology used,
restrictions on research,
restrictions on taxpayer funding,
restrictions on how human embryos are obtained,
benefits of using human embryos, versus other sources of stem cells, and
potential human life versus potential cures for fatal and non-fatal diseases.

(3) a sentence by sentence analysis will show the bias, misleading statements and numerous errors throughout this section:

"The status of the human embryo and embryonic stem cell research have proven to be predictably sensitive topics. This is because, with the present state of technology, the creation of a ‘stem cell line’ requires the destruction of a human embryo, removal of some embryonal cells, and/or therapeutic cloning."

Unnecessary, since it is identical to the opening paragraph of the article. Either the opening paragraph should be changed, or a new introduction for the section should be written.

I see your point, but each long Wikipedia article always has a summary at the beginning and then repeats in the article. --Getaway 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In my mind, this is a sign of consistency, not a problem --Nicholas 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Thus, the stem cell debates have reinvigorated the ‘pro-life’ movement who have concerned themselves with the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life."

Misleading & counter-argument is missing. First, this implies there was a lack of vigor in the pro-life movement before the stem cell debate. Second, it has not invigorated the pro-life movement, instead it has divided it. There are many people against abortion but in favor of human embryonic stem cell research. Third, no alternative view is presented. Supporters of human embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) don't believe that embryos no bigger than the period at the end of a sentence should be regarded as human beings. Although they have the potential to become human beings, they have not reached that status yet, and supporters counter that the opponents are putting the rights of a 'clump of cells' above the rights of those afflicted with diseases to search for a cure.

I agree this area needs work. --Getaway 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative views are expressed towards the end of the section. It is better to keep each argument separate, for the sake of clarity. --Nicholas 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Advocates of this position also argue that therapeutic cloning is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning. They believe that embryonic stem cell research instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life, and they criticise the distinction that is made between a ‘human embryo’ and a ‘blastocyst’ (Parry 2003)."

Counter-argument is missing. First, therapeutic cloning is not a slippery slope toward reproductive cloning since reproductive cloning requires the implantation of a (pre)embryo into a woman's uterus; therapeutic cloning is only used to produce a line of stem cells and does not require implantation. Second, supporters believe that not using human embryos destined for destruction is morally objectionable because medical treatments for diseases currently affecting humans might follow from the research. Third, the distinction made between, embryo, pre-embryo, and blastocyst, is made because there are distinct differences among them.

There may be distinct differences among them but that does fact does not have anything to do with the proposition that the use of scientific terminology makes the whole argument just a matter of logic and not emotion and the only argument against eSC is simply an emotional one, which is the argument that many, many supporters of eSC make. I still remember Ronald Reagan, Jr., the dog show host, stating at the 2004 Dem Convention that being for and against eSC is a simple matter of: "We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology." Did you get that?? If you are against eSC then you are simply ignorant and if you are for eSC then you using reason. Also, if you are against the destruction of embryos then you are following mere ideology and not showing compassion. Yeah, I would say that all of the science talk is a smoke-screen to make people who are against eSC feel stupid. --Getaway 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: "therapeutic cloning is not a slippery slope toward reproductive cloning" - surely this is your own personal belief because opponents have indeed argued this! --Nicholas 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"In addition, critics argue that embryonic stem cell research is drawing money and resources away from adult stem cell research and cord blood stem cell research.[1]"

Biased source. The founding statement of "Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics" where the quote is taken from, says it opposes ESCR because it "violates existing law and policy," "is unethical," and "is scientifically unnecessary." There is no problem in using a biased source. The whole point of this section is to discuss the controversy. But a discussion doesn't consist of one viewpoint!

"Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, has stated that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood had consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[2]"

Quintavalle's viewpiont is emblematic of this position, do you propose that we insert several more references in this context? --Nicholas 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported statement. Where is the counter-argument? If it were true that 'umbilical cord blood had consistently produced more promising results then why would researchers continue to work with embryonic stem cells? It is much easier to work with umbilical cord blood since it is easier to obtain, and there is no ethical controversy surrounding it. Josephine Quintavalle is a well-known opponent of ESCR, founder of a pro-life group, but has a degree in English, not in science. Even the announcement of the breakthrough in using umbilical cord stem cells points to the advantages of using embryonc stem cells, over cord blood stem cells:

This is debated by social science literature, which is referenced. Please read it --Nicholas 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And Ronald Reagan, Jr. is a dog show host, who dropped out of school entirely to learn ballet. Does that make him an expert on eSCR?? The supporter of eSC and the Democrats seem to think so. --Getaway 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Umbilical cord blood is not easier to obtain and I can go into great detail off line and why that is true. I would rather remain anon and the work of people that I know who rather remain anon. Let me know if you want to discuss off of the Talk Page.--Getaway 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you ask an interesting philosophical question that I just do not know the answer to: "Why would researchers continue to work with" eSC? Well, why does anyone purse difficult lines of discovery. eSC may be the ultimate answer for various treatments, but so far they have lead to ZERO treatments or therapies. That is not to say that they won't be these researchers seem to believe, even though zero science that verified their beliefs, that eSC will lead to treatments, etc. This would not be the first time that researchers have spent tons of time and money on something that lead to a deadend. The history of science and invention is full of examples of various follies. I don't know if eSC is going to be one or not, but I do know that cord blood and aSC have already lead to treatments and therapies and eSC has not. --Getaway 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The newly discovered human cells, named “cord-blood-derived embryonic-like stem cells” or CBEs, are not quite as primitive as embryonic stem cells, which can give rise to any tissue type of the body. But they appear to be much more versatile than “adult stem cells” such as those found in bone marrow which repair damaged tissue during life.

Yes, you are correct they are more versatile that aSC but they were created from cord blood, not eSC. So once again, eSC is not the ultimate answer. The example that you giving does not support eSC, but rather cord blood, which supports the comment of Quintavalle.--Getaway 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7864

"Whilst opposition argues that ‘the line at which an embryo becomes a human life remains as arbitrary as ever’ (Parry [1]), "

Again, where is the counter-argument? Supporters don't agree the line is arbitrary. In fact, the reason different terms (e.g. zygote, blastocyst, pre-embryo, embryo) are used is because of the distinct stages a fertilized egg goes through as it develops into an embryo.

The ‘blastocyst’ label is shot through with evaluative content. It is a social construct which has been used to justify a highly controversial set of experiments. "We are not conducting research on human embryos; that would be unethical; we are actually conducting research on ‘the blastocyst’, which is something different". Astonishingly, however, there is much room for manoeuvre in the classification of a blastocyst. The actual differences between a blastocyst and a human embryo seem to involve a subjective and unscientific decision based on the number of cells that the embryo contains. At what stage does a human embryo change from being a "blastocyst" to becoming an "embryo proper"? Is it with 151 cells? 160 cells? Maybe 170? Can you give me a precise figure?--Nicholas 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"those in favor of embryonic research invoke scientific vocabulary and ’evidence-based’ means to demonstrate the difference between a human embryo and the object of research, which is referred to using technical terms: such as "blastocyst" and "fetus".

Biased language & incorrect statements. Supporters of ESC research don't "invoke" scientific vocabulary, they "use" it. There is a difference between an embryo and the object of resarch (i.e. a line of stem cells); and that is why it is incorrect to state that the object of research is a blastocyst. It is the inner lining of cells inside the blastocyst that is used to derive embryonic stem cells, the object of research. No fetus are used in ESC research. A fetus refers to a developing human three months after conception to birth. Only pre-embryos are used. Only after the blastocyst has attached to the uterus is it considered an embryo.

This is a semantic argument. The word "invoke" could easily be changed.--Nicholas 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"In addition, "stem cell scientists use pictures to illustrate the visual likeness of an embryo to a collection of cells" (ibid.) in order to deflect criticism away from the "embryo-as-life" discourse. "

This is a direct quotation from a peer-reviewed social science journal--Nicholas 23:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased language & counter-argument missing. Scientists don't 'deflect criticism' they answer questions, explain and illustrate, to support their research. The counter-argument is missing. Critics of stem cell research don't want pictures used because that makes it harder for them to defend 'embryo-as-life' since the blastocyst, is a hollow ball of between 150 and 200 cells. The statement is also misleading since stem cell scientists don't use embryos, they use blastocysts, also called pre-embryos.

Speaking of biased language, you state: "Critics of stem cell research" Who are you talking about??? No one is against stem cell research. There are folks that are against eSC. That is imprecise language and it how the crazy Harris and Gallup polls come from. --Getaway 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"The medical community additionally tries to counter the moral and ethical concerns by highlighting the potential therapies that are expected to derive from research in this area."

Misleading. "additionally tries to counter" is a loaded phase implying that the medical community has not succeeded and is fighting those who hold a higher moral and ethical ground. The medical community has moral and ethical concerns for existing human patients suffering from fatal diseases.

No. The medical community is the NOT the only community that is concerned. That is a fallacy. Everyone is concerned, there is just a disagreement on how best to get there. --Getaway 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

--K. Sargent 20:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Embryonic Stem Cell Source

It should be pointed out that of the 80 lines president Bush promised existed, only about 20 were ever offered to researchers, and of those maybe 6 are actually used. It is possible these six are also now considered contaminated, and all 20 were created using mouse cells. Embryonic stem cells could come from aborted embryos. If a patient was not paid for donated embryos, there would be little incentive to abort them simply for research purposes. Another source could be some of the 400,000 frozen embryos--most of which will never be used or even adopted. There are roughly 100-200 adopted frozen embryo children alive today, which means as many as 1000 frozen embryos (of the 400,000) were used for this purpose. Couples who adopt frozen embryos are probably less likely to adopt any of the children waiting in foster homes or state funded group homes or orphanages. 192.220.217.1 04:20, 24 July 2006

This commentary is not backed up with citations to reasonable, qualified sources. Much of the information is just flat out wrong. -- --Getaway 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, what exactly is an "aborted embryo"??? I wish 192.220.217.1 would explain what that is?? --Getaway 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV warning tag

I think that we should wait another day. But if after that time the editor who placed that tag there does not engage in a polite and civilized discussion of why the tag should be there then I suggest we remove it. --Getaway 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --Nicholas 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Make a new page for policy?

I am working on potential edits for this page. It seems to me that the policies of human stem cell research, which are included in this page on various controversies, should be a separate page. Any feedback on this proposal is appreciated. 19:06, 31 July 2006 Nologo

Some proposed changes

I made some significant changes to the first section yesterday, and it was reverted, noting that such significant changes need to be discussed first. I apologize for that, I am new here.

Overall, I feel that this entry does not have a NPOV, is not thorough enough in places, and is occassionally poorly organized.

The largest change I did (and would like to do) is to separate concerns about human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR) in general from those that are specific to the use of cloning techniques in stem cell research. Concerns over the former are generally limited to the moral status of the human embryo, whereas the latter raise other concerns, such as opening the door to reproductive cloning and how to source so many human eggs. In fact, a significant portion of supporters of abortion rights have enough concerns about cloning in stem cell research to call for regulation, a moratorium, or a ban. As is, this article implies that all concerns about cloning are limited to the moral status of the embryo.

So I wrote some clarification of hESCR (e.g. embryos come from IVF, and are clated for eventual destruction), and wrote a mostly new section on concerns specific to cloning in stem cell research.

In addition, this cloning technique is alternatively called somatic cell nuclear transfer, therapeutic cloning, or research cloning. I prefer the last term, because the first is the technical process and carries little meaning in the lay context, and the middle is inaccurate as there as currently no therapies from it. (e.g. we say embryonic stem cell research, not therapy - at the moment.)

The second significant change that I would like to do is improve NPOV. Most of my ideas for this came from the exchange above, NPOV for Controversy surrounding embryonic stem cells. So I replaced this:

those in favor of embryonic research invoke scientific vocabulary and ’evidence-based’ means to demonstrate the difference between a human embryo and the object of research, which is referred to using technical terms: such as "blastocyst" and "fetus". In addition, "stem cell scientists use pictures to illustrate the visual likeness of an embryo to a collection of cells" (ibid.) in order to deflect criticism away from the "embryo-as-life" discourse. The medical community additionally tries to counter the moral and ethical concerns by highlighting the potential therapies that are expected to derive from research in this area.

Which seems to me to be an anti-hESCR counterargrument to a pro-hESCR argument. (On second reading, the last sentence could certainly be kept.) I added this short paragraph:

Most stem cell researchers wish to use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertilization treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are slated to be destroyed, or stored indefinitely. In the United States alone, there are at least 400,000 such embryos.[2] This has resulted in a growing number of opponents of abortion rights, such as Senator Orrin Hatch,[3] to support human embryonic stem cell research.

I also made a number of minor changes queued up, such as stating "human" and/or "embryonic" when that is appropriate, improving language, and adding references.Jesse Reynolds 16:59, 8 August 2006

So-called New Technology

is hype. The most recent so-called breakthrough that will change the stem cell debate has turned out to be just more hype from the embryonic stem cell side of the debate. It ranks up there with the comments of Ron Reagan, Jr, John Edwards and Hwang Woo-Suk. I'm removing any reference to it and marking it down on the embryonic stem cell hype list. I just can't wait until 2008 when John Edwards and Hillary Clinton tell the world that they have found the miracle and Wikipedia prints it. Please review this article from the Washington Post concerning the recent hype: [3], Rich Weiss, Critic Alleges Deceit in Study On Stem Cells Report's Basic Facts Are Unchallenged Washington Post, Saturday, August 26th, 2006, page A02. Notice the title of the article, it sounds like the CBS argument about the Dan Rather doctored documents, "Fake but Accurate."--Getaway 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should be very vary of media publications on stem cell research. The media is known to overhype any small scientific advancement: like science knows what causes a type of cancer, therefore a cure will be imminent - this is the basic fallacy that the media always makes to sell the news. This article should simply report scientific findings (drawn directly from the scientific publication on which the media builds the hype).--Roland Deschain 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(Removed comment by HarmonyWorld. It did not provide any imput on the article and was intended to inflame pointless debate)--Roland Deschain 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have written him a personal message urging him to find sources for his outburst and to abide by WP:NPOV.--Roland Deschain 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

page split

I am creating a new page for stem cell research policy. About half the current article deals with policy, whereas the topic here is the controversy.

Jesse Reynolds 21:44, 25 September 2006

Jesse Reynolds , I object to your recent edits. I think what you have done is turned this page from Stem cell controversy into a page on American Stem Cell controversy. Your edits have pulled all the world wide information about Stem cells from the website. Instead you've left large sections about 'opinion polls in the United States'. I think the old edition was fine how it was, as when people want read about a controversy they often like to see how different countries legislate on an issue. For example abortion is controversial and I would expect an abortion controversy page to include the legal position in different countries. At worst your changed edits have isolated this information as you didn't even link a "See also" section to the stem cell research policy page. Again the whole article is now entirely American, I can't find anything about The controversy in Australia? or the controversy in Austria? At least before I could see the legal position of such countries. At best this article should deal with the Ethical, Medical/Health, Political, Economical, etc. considerations and then detail how the controversy is viewed in different countries. Finally I think it's appropriate for a section cocerning the legislative position of different countries with regards to this 'controversy'. I am going to revert your edit, despite the fact there are probably some good changes. We or someone else can discuss the changes here, if a consensus is to go with your idea, the I'll just accept that. Kyle sb 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kyle sb. This information is best understood, in its entirety, in context. --Nicholas 07:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry its taken some days for me to respond. To me, there are two questions here. First, do the controversies and the policies belong together? Given the length of these article(s), I would say they don't. Some readers want to read on the policies, and others on the controversial issues. A user who searches for 'stem cell research policy' may not expect a description of the policies to be on a page about the controversies. I made a point of cross linking the two pages in their first paragraph. As it stood, I felt there was a sudden shift as the text went from controversies to policies. However, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter - I just felt this made the pieces more user-friendly.

Second, how can we balance American issues (controversy and policies) with other countries? An inadvertant consequence of splitting the articles was that the controversies section was quite America-centric, whereas the policies section had a more balanced global view. I agree that the controversies section needs incorporation of the debates in other countries, and/or a removal of the American focus. I can do some of that, but I am most familiar with the American debates.

Perhaps a solution would be to strengthen global issues, then split. --Jesse Reynolds 21:24, 2 October 2006, revised 01:44 6 October 2006

Medical professionals with high expectations for S.C.R.

Others still have high expectations for cell therapy.

Could we have some references to/quotes from medical professionals who still believe that stem cell research could directly lead to some `medical miracles'? 58.107.51.55 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have tagged this article as NPOV because I do not feel that it does any justice to the possibility that stem cells research, and embryonic stem cell research in particular, can cure diseases that currently have no cure. As someone has already pointed out above, the pro-cure counter-argument is missing. Not a single such disease is mentioned in the article, instead it focuses on trying to put these hopes of mankind in the most negative light possible. No scientific discussion of the scientific and medical reasons for wanting to study stem cells is given. I definitely have my own strong point of view on this subject, because I suffer from a degenerative eye disorder that can lead to blindness and has no cure. For people like me, stem cell research is the LAST, BEST HOPE for a cure within our lifetimes and a chance to see a world that is not constantly blurry. Since there is NO KNOWN CURE, despite 100 years of research on the disease, there is no way that anyone can overpromise anything (as the article claims). Why would I "blacklash" against people trying to save my eyesight if their research is not successful? At least they tried to find a cure! The only people I would ever feel like lashing out against are those who knowingly and deliberately impeded us from being able to try to find a cure. I don't think that only my point of view should be included, all I'm asking is that the medical and scientific counter-argument be fairly and sufficiently presented.. I've tried to make some improvements to the article by adding scientific information but I don't think that those changes have been properly integrated and other people should provide their input. --74.98.255.77 05:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The section Controversy over stem cell treatments refers to a main article Stem cell treatments. The latter goes into much detail, and is quite optimistic in its language, in my opinion. The current page is on the controversies, and one such controversy is whether the claims of potential therpies have been exaggerated. I've add a couple sentences outlining the potential. Perhaps the NPOV tag can be removed.

I did, however, remove the following paragraph which you added:

On the other hand, stem cell transplants are common medical practice, with the stem cells often coming from organ donors in the case of eye surgery to cure or prevent blindness. However successes rates are not as high as patients would hope. Stem cell transplants also play a role in therapy for cancer in cases such as leukemia. It is logical that if stem cells from donated organs provide some degree of successes then a complete understanding of stem cells, which is only possible by studying embryonic stem cells, is very likely to lead to far better treatments.

There are no embryonic stem cell clinical trials, much less treatments. Adult cell cell transplants happen, but are not common medical practice. It is unclear if that is what you are referring to. In the case of eye diseases, the company Advanced Cell Technology appears to have recently treated blindess in rats. If I am wrong, please provide references to this practice.

--Jesse Reynolds 02:34 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Reynolds , with all due respect, you could not be more wrong about there not being clinical trials with stem cells. Please do not make such false staments when there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts you [4]. The major problem with this article right now is the lack of an understanding types of stem cells. Saying embryonic stem cells has a very broad meaning and it needs to be better explained. Notice that the paragraph you deleted had nothing to do with embryonic stem cells ;). The last part it valid conjecture, but should be referenced if possible.--Roland Deschain 02:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Roland, please note that my comment was trying to clarify issues with adult and embryonic stem cells. The paragraph in question was ambiguous about whether it was referring to adult or embryonic stem cells. But it came at the end of a section about the possibility of potentially exaggerated claims around embryonic stem cell research. And to be honest, most readers equate "stem cells" with "embryonic stem cells." So I simply call for clarity and accuracy.

My comment made two points: First, there are no clinical trials for embryonic stem cell research, although one is planned next year. Second, I am not aware of any stem cell treatments, adult or embryonic or umbilical cord, in humans "donors in the case of eye surgery to cure or prevent blindness." And I agree that the last sentence is conjecture and is not appropriate for WP. I propose that (1) the first sentence refere explicitly to adult stem cells, (2) the reference to treating or curing blindness either be referenced or removed, and (3) the final sentence be removed. --Jesse Reynolds 19:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(1) PLease review stem cell treatments for information about corneal and retinal stem cell transplants. They are referenced in that article. (2) Valid conjecture about the outcomes of stem cell research IS appropriate for this article. Your proposal is wholly unacceptable. Adult stem cells are used to treat blindness and cancer even though very little is understood about stem cells. It is self-evident that emrbyonic stem cell research is extremely likely improve the current state of stem cell transplant treatment. Roland is not arguing that this valid conjecture be removed, it is only you who is arguing for this. Who told you that conjecture is not appropriate for Wikipedia? Can you please cite a policy document to support your claim? --- 209.183.141.61 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Getaway's edits

Why is this guy trying to revert all my edits about the nature of the opposition to human emrbyonic stem cell research? Is he disputing that this is a religious issue? Is just a coincidence that he says on his User Page that he is Jewish and then he comes here and tries to suppress the fact that the vast majority of opposition against stem cell research in America comes from Christians, Jews and Musilms (who all believe in the same Adam/Eve creationist theory)? Who is REALLY trying to impose his own opinion here?

This anon editor, is engaging in partisan personal attacks on Getaway. NO WHERE on my user page does it state that I am Jewish and it never has. Please check the edit log. Also, there are scientific reasons to be against esc research. Not just religious ones. Anon editor is flat out making up facts and he is distorting the issues around esc research.--Getaway 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did he delete my referenced comment that anti-stem cell people think that stem cell research is "murder?" That "murder is wrong" is the White House's main defense for Bush's veto against the recent stem cell research bill.

Why has Getaway tried to delete undeniable scientific facts, such as trying to remove the word "initial" in my sentence "These 3 initial iterations of cell division do not cause the zygote to increase in size, instead the cells become smaller as they increase in number." The embryo begins with 1 cell, then 2, then 4, then 8. The first 8 cells from 8 initial iterations of cell divisions (8 = 2^3).

Why is Getaway trying to suppress the fact that embryonic stem cell researchers use the 8 cell zygote obtained from fertalization clinics? Why is he inserting the completely false claim that the stem cell line comes from a blastocyst (an final stage embryo that contains thousands of cells and only develops in the uterus)? Fertalization clinics do not freeze and store blastocysts.

Getaway's actions are inexcusable. He should either try to explain himself in the talk pages, or action should be taken against him.

Also, his insinuation that my edits should be removed because I'm editing anonymously is totally baseless and not in line with Wikimedia policy. I am the one who contributed the entire paragraph on the scientific description of embryonic development, from sperm and egg to new born baby, and then Getaway goes in an selectively deleted scientific facts which he finds inconvenient while claiming that my scientific discourse is just the "personal opinion of a anon." -- 209.183.141.61 20:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this only about embryonic stem cell research?

This page seems to be entirely about embryonic stem cell research. Should the title be changed to reflect that? --Jesse Reynolds 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Embryonic cells are indeed at the heart of this controversy. That doesn't mean that the article shouldn't discuss other types of stem cells, but you ARE right that the article's title is inaccurate. -- 74.98.255.77 04:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No there is a controversy over human/animal chimeras, controversy over hype, and controversy over patents, amongst others. This article largely covers the controversy over eSCR, but that is because the article is incomplete. --Nicholas 09:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that the article is inomplete, but to stick with my original assertion just a bit longer... the hype seems to be about embryonic SCR, and the patent disputes are solely about them. The policies and polls mentioned are about ESCR. What are the controversies around adult SCR? --Jesse Reynolds 19:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous entries and POV

First, I would highly recommend that people who are seriously interested in editing this article, and interested in doing so on a regular basis, should be logging in under usernames. It lends no credence to the quality of articles that deal with controversial subjects to have so many anonymous entries. Please, if you believe so strongly in this issue, have the nerve to stand behind your position.

Second, I have removed the sentence that was at the end of the introductory paragraph, which read:

"However, some believe that the death of a zygote embryo is outweighed by the millions of patients that, in theory, could be saved once stem cell treatments have been fully developed."

This is problematic for two reasons: (1) It is out of place. It is a detail in a complicated debate that isn't part of an introductory overview; (2) More importantly, it manages to be, at the same time, both enormously and subtly point-of-view. The sentence is clearly loaded against those who do not support embryonic stem cell research. The fact that millions might benefit from the research is discussed in this and other articles, but that's not the point of the sentence, is it? The sentence is a clumsy attempt to make a veiled stab at those on the opposite side of this debate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekwriter (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 October 2006

(Yes, I suppose I see the irony in creating this heading and then forgetting to sign it! :) )Derekwriter 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has been so completely butchered by an anon Wikipedian that it is total crap. I don't think it is capable of being repaired. The anon editor has stated over and over again that anyone and everyone that disagrees with embryonic stem cell research is a religious fanatic. That is total BS and the article is just flat out shot. I am only willing to make sure that it has the appropriate tags all over it and move on because the anon editor reverts anyone who attempts to fix the flat out lies and distortions that are contained in the article.--Getaway 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article is a lost cause; however, at this point I would highly recommend bringing it to the attention of an admin and having it put on semi-protection. Derekwriter 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Controvery over stem cell treatment

Near the end of this section it mentions a logical conclusion. This sounds like a conclusion drawn by the editor not a fact, whether true or not. However if it is not a personal opionon perhaps the source of this statement can be listed. Because at the moment it sounds like a conclusion is being drawn from the information. I might be incorrect but, isn't Wikipedia designed to provide information not draw conclusions from the information. I thought that you were only supposed to list an idea if it can be referenced. As I said before if there is a source of this opionon why not list it in the section rather than have it seem like bias by an editor

China Policy section

The whole section is an essay baased upon one, maybe two sources. That is NOT how Wikipedia works. There needs to be consensus, not create a whole section based upon the OPINION of one source. The section will be cut down to size and put into context. This is example of how this whole article has grown out of control. It is sloppy work.--Getaway 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A scientist's comments on the "pro-argument"

1) Embryonic stem cells have the ability to grow indefinitely in a laboratory environment and can differentiate into almost all types of bodily tissue. This makes embryonic stem cells extremely useful in the search for cures of many diseases.

True, they have a great potential for study in the lab, but I don't necessarily think that immediately translates into medical therapies. We've known about genes for how many years now, and don't have many (any?) particularly useful gene therapy methods.

The statement is that "embryonic stem cells are useful in the search for cures." Yes, it is true that there are not many useful gene therapy methods available, but it is also true that embryonic stem cell research could theoretically lead to therapies, which makes them necessary in the search for cures, not necessarily curing the actual disease.

2) Embryonic stem cells are considered far more useful than adult stem cells because: a) embryonic stems cells are easier to find and isolate

I don't agree, you have to get access to embryos, which is NOT easy.

I think this is the argument that it is easier to find embryonic stem cell within the embryo and isolate them than it is to find adult stem cells in the adult tissue, which is true. The difficulty with the access to embryos may be resolved with a change in social sentiment and legislation over embryonic stem cell research.

b) blastocysts have an abundant quantity of stem cells, where as completely developed humans posses stem cells in minute quantities.

Yes, they are filled with them, but blastocytes are very small (150-200 cells). Adults on the other hand, may have small proportions of cells, but should have more total stem cells, or at least lots of progenitor cells that could be used in therapies. Plus, the whole argument behind stem cell research is you can expand cells ex vivo - so why should it matter if you have less adult stem cells if their growth is practically unlimited.

I agree that adults should have more total stem cells, but in experimentation, one can't take a whole adult. Thus, if we were to reword the statement a little more, it would be that blastocysts have more percentage of stem cells, which is definitely true. This actually is very important, because as we know (and as you must know working with progenitor cells), one of the primary draw backs of adult stem cells is that they don't always self-renew indefinitely and will often differetiate into the cell tissue from which they were isolated. Thus, expanding cells ex vivo is far easier for embryonic stem cells than it is with adult stem cells.

c) Embryonic stem cells divide quicker and easier than adult stem cells.

Huh? I've grown mesenchymal stem cells for a while now, and they grow really slowly. Other adult progenitor cells are much faster.

I don't understand your argument. Mesenchymal stem cells are adult stem cells, so they would grow really slowly. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, grow far faster and can self renew almost indefinitely. While progenitor cells are limited in self renewal.

d) Embryonic stem cells have greater plasticity.

True, but if you are only trying to heal a liver (for example), no one has explained to me yet why you need a pluripotent ES cell, when a unipotent adult liver progenitor could do the job?

the trick is that it's not just liver that is trying to be healed.

e) embryonic stem cells were shown to be effective in treating heart damage in mice.

True, but last time I checked, mice aren't people. Lots of rich people are having stem cells already injected into them, but I doubt we will ever know the results as it is not in the financial interests of the stem cell therapy companies to invalidate their own work, and people are quite happy to pay for an unvalidated technology. This was discussed in Nature Magazine several months ago (early 2006).

Mice may not be people, but we are certainly closer to them than insects. Anyway, what often works for mice also works for humans. What issue of Nature discussed this? I would like to read it.

f) Adult stem cells from the patients own body might not be effective in treatment of some disorders, where the cause of the ailment might be present in the adult's DNA. In addition, the adult stem cell might not divide fast enough to offer immediate treatment.

This is two points. In the first case, where there is a defect in the patient's DNA, you could suggest either adult stem cell therapy combined with gene therapy to fix the defect, or allogenous ES cell therapy. Of course any allogenic therapy has problems with graft-host rejection that aren't mentioned. The second point is fair, although again it implies using "off the shelf" ES cells, rather than the patient's own cells - thus negating one of the primary arguments for stem cell therapy.

"off the shelf" ES cells might have great potential. Of course, rejection is always a fear with this approach. Nevertheless, "off the shelf" ES might have promise when no other option is available.

g) adult stem cells have numerous DNA abnormalities, which are caused by exposure to toxins and sunlight, as well as errors from DNA replication. This may make adult stem cells unsuitable for treatment.

But if you make ES cells from the patient's cells (therapeutic cloning), that won't necessarily fix the abnormalities.

Using embryonic stem cells from blastocysts would definitely fix this problem. That's why you wouldn't necessarily use the patients own DNA.

3) The creation of embryonic stem cells from existing stem cell lines do not require the destruction of the human embryo, and therefore, a lot of embryonic stem cell research does not conflict with the theology of some of those opposed. However, in order to create treatment with embryonic stem cells, it is necessary to create new lines, because of the poor quality of the existing lines.

I'm not going to get involved with the ethical arguments. I'm just trying to inject some scientific validity to the discu:ssion.

4) Australia alone has 70,000 unused IVF embryos that will be destroyed anyway. There are thousands of IVF embryos slated for destruction. Using them for scientific research utilizes what would otherwise be wasted.

Ethics again.

5) Embryonic stem cell research has great potential to improve the quality of human life.

Hmmm, again this is a statement with more hope than fact behind it. Most scientists work on basic rather than translational research that has no hope of changing any patient's quality of life. Still, it may be argued that if it wasn't so difficult to do translational research (i.e. human ES cell research), progresses might be faster.

It might be better to say that embryonic stem cell research may have great potential?

Why don't you just say "many people believe that embryonic stem cell research has great potential" ?

6) Approximately 18% of zygotes do not implant after conception (http://radiology.creighton.edu/pregnancy.htm). This means that there are millions of zygotes that get flushed down the toilet due to the timing of conception and where the woman is in her reproductive cycle. In order to save every single “human life” (if one believes human life to begin at conception), every sexually active woman would have to urinate through a sieve. Regarding a zygote as a human life could mean that simple necessary daily actions, such as peeing, need great moral consideration.

Another ethical argument, although one that seems a bit non-sensical to me. It would be like saying "speeding laws are silly because people die in cars when people aren't speeding - if you really care about car-related deaths, you would just ban cars". Inherently, most people realise there is a difference between a non-implantation event that one has no control over and the conscious decision to terminate. In my opinion, these sorts of arguments do not really promote the ES cell cause.

I agree, nevertheless, it is an argument that some proponents of embryonic stem cell research make.

7) Blastocysts are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue. This has led many scientitsts to argue that the blastocyst is no more human than a skin cell (http://www.spinneypress.com.au/178_book_desc.html).

Again, I think most rational people would believe there is a difference between an embryo and a skin cell.

Personally, I think a lot of people are in favour of ES cell research because it may lead eventually to the treatment of certain conditions that may not be treated by other methods - particularly nervous system diseases or spinal damage - where adult progenitor cells are difficult to isolate. I also think that most people recognise that an embryo is not a skin cell or a full-term infant, but something in between with the potential to achieve the human condition. Arguing either extreme doesn't intuitively seem sensible. Dr Aaron 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well.

No. 6 pros

Personally I find this contribution offensive. The reason I find it offensive is hard to explain, but the example of how to save every human life seems snide, and from a logical prospective impossible. I mean how long could the embryo survive out of the human body, even if by some miracle there is a strainer which can catch the embryo (I'm not great with such small measurements but I believe this to be impossible)?

It might also be irrelevant because while the percentage rate is correct (or is presumably so, this isn't my field of expertise) it doesn't really pertain to the stem cell controversy but instead to the whole life at conception one. Chooserr 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Life at conception is indeed crucial to this debate, because it is the theological basis for why so many people object to embryonic stem cell research.

Categories: Talk archives