Talk:Stem cell controversy - Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Zinnober9 (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 24 July 2024 (Fixed Lint errors on this page (stripped tags)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 05:57, 24 July 2024 by Zinnober9 (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors on this page (stripped tags))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Christianity: Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Baptist / Methodism Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Baptist work group.
	This article is supported by Methodism work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Catholicism Low‑importance

Stem cell controversy is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Duquesne University/UCOR 143 Global and Cultural Perspectives (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Archives

Archive 1

Restructuring and Updating

Included a line in the points of controversy about the requirement for the destruction of an embryo to obtain a new ESC line to clarify where the controversy stems from.

Re-worked the alternatives and potential solutions sections combining them as much of their information overlapped.

Updated information on iPSCs, specifically focusing on the epigenetic memory of iPSCs discussing how the tissue of origin has recently been shown to impact the differentiation success of the iPSCs. Also added a sentence about the specific Yamanaka factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc) to bring clarity to how the iPSCs are derived from somatic cells. Furthermore, edited the somatic cell nuclear transfer section to again mention the epigenetic memory of such cells.

Created 'Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)' subsection. Included links to the pages pluripotency, Oct-4, SOX2, Myc, KLF4, embryonic stem cells, somatic cells, epigenetic, Nobel Prize, and embryos in the iPSC subsection. Included links in the same subsection to several papers on iPSCs to keep the information up to date.

Created 'Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)' subsection. Added links to the SCNT page, oocyte, and nucleus page in the SCNT subsection. Added a discussion about the different ethical challenges that SCNT stem cells face. More can be found on the SCNT page.

Created 'Single-Cell blastomere biopsy' subsection. Added link to the ISSCR page.

Created 'Amniotic fluid cells (AFSCs)' subsection. Added links to the Amniotic stem cell, fetus, and organoid pages. Added a sentence about the potential of AFSCs in vitro as well as a link to Anthony Atala's original paper on the subject.

Created 'Umbilical cord blood (UCB)' subsection. Added links to the cord blood and homogeneity vs heterogeneity pages. Edited the existing discussion to make it more grammatically correct and added information about possible advantages to stem cells from this source.

Added paragraph about informed consent of donors for all of these methods. Added links to the informed consent, viable, tetraploid complementation assay, FDA, EMA, and ISSCR pages. Included links to papers discussing the ethical collection of genetic information and how to do so with the informed consent of the donor.

Overall, edits were done to update and clarify the information on the page. Attempted to not take any opinionated stances and included links to primary papers on any information that could be deemed controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkennedy12 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Biased Language

I don't want to edit this article without some say so from others, but this particular sentence jumped out at me.

"President Bush authorized research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines, not on human embryos under a specific, unrealistic timeline in which the stem cell lines must have been developed."

This seems like a clear case of bias. If there is something unrealistic about the timeline, more information can be given, and readers can decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snookumz (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Action is needed to correct a literally false statement

The first sentence under the heading "Governmental Policy Debate in the United States" is a literally false statement. The sentence recites: "Federal funding for stem cell research is legal today in the United States by decision of President Barack Obama on the 9th of March, 2009." This sentence is not true based upon other facts stated in this article. I propose replacing the sentence with the following sentence:

"By executive order on March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama made federal funding available for research on new lines of human embryonic . Prior to President Obama's executive order, federal funding was limited to non-embryonic stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research based upon embryonic stem cell lines in existence prior to August 9, 2001. Federal funding remains prohibited for (1) the creation of a human embryo for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero (see the Dickey Amendment)."

The proposed replacement is factually correct and preferable to the current sentence for the following three reasons:

First, this article states that Congress passed the Dickey Amendment in 1995, "which prohibited any federal funding for the Department of Health and Human Services be used for research that resulted in the destruction of an embryo regardless of the source of that embryo". The Dickey Amendment is an appropriation bill rider and has been included in each Health and Human Services appropriation act since FY1996. The language of the Dickey Amendment is included in the FY2009 omnibus bill enacted on March 11, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, Sec. 509). Therefore, the language of the Dickey Amendment is still the controlling law as passed by Congress, until it is removed from the DHHS appropriations act. The law is not superseded by an executive order. The statement that "Federal funding for stem cell research is legal today" is literally false because federal funding for any research (including stem cell research) that results in the destruction of the embryo remains illegal.

_{Since the Dickey Amendment specifies the "Department of Health and Human Services" is it possible that funding could come from another source within the federal government thus avoiding the prohibition of the destruction of the human embryo? If this is so then The Dickey Amendment and the above objection to the wording here is just smoke and mirrors.--Mauchen (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)}

_{The objection is not "smoke and mirrors", as asserted by Mauchen, because President Obama's executive order is specifically directed to the Secretary of DHHS and Director of NIH, whose agencies are both funded through the DHHS Appropriations Act. The relevant text of the executive order of March 9, 2009 recites: "Sec. 2. Research. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW." (Emphasis added). The actual language of the executive order itself includes the disclaimer "to the extent permitted by law}

_{The "law", under the Dickey Amendment, does not permit the DHHS, including the NIH, to fund research that results in the destruction of a human embryo. President Obama's executive order, which is directed to the Secretary of DHHS and the Director of NIH, therefore, falls under the purview of the Dickey Amendment. It is literally false to say that "Federal funding for stem cell research is legal today in the United States by decision of President Barack Obama on the 9th of March, 2009" because federal funding originating from current appropriations to the DHHS (the likely source) remains prohibited for research that results in the destruction of an embryo, regardless of President Obama's executive order. As I understand it, extracting stem cells from an embryo presently results in the destruction of the embryo and the DHHS is therefore still prohibited from funding research that extracts stem cells from a human embryo.}

_{As it stands now, for federal funding of hESC research to be "legal", additional action is required above and beyond President Obama's executive order. Congress would need to pass and the President would need to sign legislation specifically funding hESC research outside of the DHHS appropriation, which is currently limited by the Dickey Amendment. Such action has not yet been taken but may well be the case in the future after the NIH reports back to President Obama. Alternatively, Congress would need to pass and the President would need to sign a DHHS appropriation bill that does not include the Dickey Amendment language, which would not happen before FY2010 because the FY2009 appropriation includes the Dickey Amendment language. Yet another alternative would be for the DHHS or NIH to fund hESC research out of the current DHHS appropriation and defend any lawsuits challenging the legality of such funding under the Dickey Amendment. Any of these three alternatives may well come to fruition in the future, but until then it is false to say that federal funding of stem cell research was made legal by President Obama's executive order.}

_{The second and third points below explaining why the sentence in question is misleading remain unaddressed.Omniscientest (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)}

Second, the issue addressed by President Obama's executive order of March 9, 2009 is expanding federal funding of research on human embryonic stem cells (hESC). Federal funding is and has been available for other stem cell research, such as research on adult stem cells or stem cells from cord blood. To say "Federal funding for stem cell research is legal today in the United States" is misleading because it implies that federal funding for non-hESC research, which is stem cell research, was prohibited prior to President Obama's executive order, which is factually incorrect.

Third, federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research on existing hESC lines is and has been available in the United States since August 9, 2001. This article includes the following sentence: "President Bush announced, on August 9, 2001 that federal funds, for the first time, would be made available for hESC research on currently existing stem cell lines." That is, President Bush made federal funding available for human embryonic stems cell lines in existence prior to August 9, 2001 in his presidential statement of the same date. To say "Federal funding for stem cell research is legal today in the United States" is misleading because it implies that federal funding for hESC research was not available prior to President Obama's executive order, which is also factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.194.90 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

As the page was over 60kb, I've created an archive & archive box. Dr Aaron 02:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rephrasing the arguments

I've had a go at rephrasing both the for and against arguments sections. I'm happier with them, but I still think I could do better if I really took the time. Upon reflection (and re-writing the section), I really think that most people do take an inherently utilitarian approach, and the main point of contention is what value to put on an embryo. Dr Aaron 10:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On the pro-side the arguments are typically utilitarian but not so on the anti-side. --Herb West 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the opening paragraph. "Opponents of the research argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and tantamount to the instrumentalization of a potential human being." -- I have heard very few people object to embryonic stem cell research because it may lead to cloning. The reason I have heard most often for opposing it is that harvesting embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a human embryo, in other words, murder. (A method has been developed where some of an embryo's cells are taken, and the remaining embryo is allowed to live, presumaby to adulthood, but there's even an objection to that: The cells taken have the ability to grow into a full-fledged embryo themselves. Essentially, this process duplicates the method in which identical twins form naturally, and then murders one of the twins.) 163.192.21.44 17:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't write the opening paragraph & I certainly see your point. I've left the statement in, but I've softened it a bit.

The second method you allude to is described in the section 2.3 Stem cells without embryonic destruction. One criticism of the approach described by Lanza (harvesting stem cells from embryos without destroying them) is that all the embryos in his study were destroyed - none of them were even attempted to be taken to term. I was thinking I should update that section when I find the time. Dr Aaron 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Aaron, I agree with Herb West, that the basis for most anti-stem cell arguments is not based in utilitarianism, rather in teleology. To be clear, I agree that the statement "the value of an embryo outweighs the potential benefits to medicine" is a utilitarian statement, not a teleological one, however, that is not the basic argument used by the "religous." Therefore I propose substituting a teleological statement, and one consistent with those who may be anti-STR, as follows: "Based upon this value system, the subsequent argument against embryonic stem cell research is teleological, i.e. life (an embryo) is inherently valuable and cannot be involuntarily destroyed to save another life." I hope that makes sense. SteveMc 01:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I like your line about teleology and substituted it in pretty much as is. I think we should also add the argument often made that research into ES cells is a slippery slope to other "unethical" research avenues, including human cloning. The recent statements of the Australian Cardinal Pell along the lines that ES cell research will lead to "monstrous human-animal hybrids" could be cited (with references). Dr Aaron 06:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

One "slippery slope" argument might be that technological advances may make it impossible to enforce some legal safeguards, because it will become extremely difficult to know what researchers might be up to, unofficially, in their labs. At the moment, if a "mad scientist" type wants to mess about with human cell lines in ways that society would disapprove of, they first have to source some embyronic material, which may leave an administrative trail. But once we learn how to get somatic cells to do the trick, then it becomes much easier to play Frankenstein, or to obtain viable reproductive material from people, perhaps without their knowledge or permission. It makes it more difficult for an individual to enforce their reproductive rights in deciding who they may have children with, or if they want to have children at all. There may be implications for the retention of tissue by hospitals or even dentists. Does consenting to be an organ donor or leaving your body to science mean that you may be unwittingly agreeing that your reproductive cells (or any other cells) can be used to create embryos after your death? A patient may be quite keen to to have some sort of guarantee their tissue sample or removed organ is not eventually going to be used to make them the unknowing father of someone's gruesome illegal lab experiments.

And there are going to be other social issues that will have to be dealt with. Suppose that someone obtained a tissue sample of, say, a famous and wealthy celebrity. If they could develop an embryo, and then remove viable egg cells from that embryo, they may be able to fertilise those cells, leading to a child that is the offspring of that person, and who may be eligible for a share in their personal wealth or (if they are deceased) their estate. Does someone have parental responsibilities for a child that was produced without their consent or knowledge? Can children conceived post-mortem by third parties have a claim on a wealthy family's resources? The recent scrabbling about between men claiming to be father of Anna Nicole Smith's child (because the child may stand to inherit a lot of money) may be a foretaste of some of the awkward problems that we might have ahead of us. ErkDemon 10:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the pro and con arguments are presented in different formats. While the pro argument is presented in bulleted hypotheses, the con argument is presented in a sort of paraphrase containing many instances of "It is claimed..." or "It is believed...", which, in my opinion, lends an implicit element of skepticism not present in the foregoing pro argument. I think that, for the sake of neutrality, one format should be decided upon for both. Moreover, I think that bullets might be a better format simply on the grounds that they exposit the information more readily than prose.--Jr mints 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

New-born Ukranian babies murdered for stem-cells

I believe this belongs somewhere in the article.

--BigFishy 10:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Just like the Korean fraud needs to be mentioned in the article.--Getaway 17:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - at this stage. While an interesting report, I'd like to see how it develops and is discussed before putting it in. The Korean fraud probably should be added, although I'm not sure how it would fit in - it doesn't really impact on the ethics per se. It is a simple case of scientific fraud. I guess it could fit in as an argument against stem cell research - there is a high amount of pressure on scientists to generate life-saving results and is thus prone to fraud. Dr Aaron 21:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

IF stem cell research has a future then I assume there has been extensive animal experiments. The article mentions mice once - one footnote that goes to an article that mentions mice once. There must be far more animal research and promising results than one mice heart fixed. Is there a link to animal research and all the benefits that have been found. ( Cures for animal diabetes, etc ) The article almost sounds like human research has started before - or awfully close behind - animal studies. Are the researchers jumping the gun to be the first in a human discovery - long before the basic science is even understood - sounds like AIDS research (mixing up cures in their cauldrons to see if a pinch of frog helps).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 January 2007)

Can scientists ever win? If a focus is put on animal research, opponents claim the research is unfeasible because of the extensive differences between mice and humans. If human experiments are pushed, they get criticised for jumping the gun to be the first to get a human discovery.

Enough ranting.

To address the above statement, the science in this article is fairly thin on the ground because stem cell and related pages focus on the science, while this page focuses on the ethical and social arguments for and against stem cells.

There has been a lot of cell biology done with both animal and human stem cells. However, the therapeutic applications of this research has not been rapidly translated to either mouse or human models, although many are trying and there are some "promising findings". Much the same for cancer research really - we know a lot about what causes cancer and the genetic changes that go on in cancer cells, but this hasn't translated into a cure (nor is there one on the horizon).

In my opinion, cell-based therapies will be increasingly used in medicine (they have been for years) i.e. bone marrow transplants, but the ethical and cost issues associated with using true "stem cells" will make clinical translation a long way off. Neurology has the most to gain from stem cell research, with other cell types showing little hope of curing spinal cord damage or brain degeneration. Dr Aaron 13:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Larid study

I just noticed that some comment was made about an article apparently going to be published in nature saying that cancer is caused by ES cells? I'd like a reference (and to read it first) before putting something as inflammatory. Also, epigenetics does not refer to "drinking and smoking". That statement is plain wrong. Dr Aaron 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I marked it citation needed, it seems too charged and weighted to one side to belong without references. 24.227.5.66 17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why reference #7 in the article is blank? There are plenty of references to it, but there is no link to the original article at the bottom. Was just wondering whats up with that.--67.9.90.15 06:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess it got deleted by mistake a while back. I found the full reference in an earlier version of the page and put it back in. Dr Aaron 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename page to Stem cell ethical controversy?

I think there needs to be more emphasis on the fact that there is ethical controversy over embryonic stem cell research, but not adult stem cell research. I propose changing the title because there is a lot of non-ethically related "stem cell controversy" such as plasticity of adult stem cells, adult stem cell fusion, etc to reflect that this page does not cover these topics. (Or, links to these topics could be added). --MPW 16:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the name - current the lay person doesn't always understand the convoversy pertains to embryonic stem cells.

I don't think all the ethical controversy of stem cells is unique to embryonic stem cells. For instance, if adult stem cells can be suitably reprogrammed to behave like ES cells, the potential for human reproductive cloning is still there. Also adult stem cells reprogramming may be able to make an "embryo", so there is still the descruction of life argument.

I agree there isn't much discussion over the plasticity of adult stem cells, however this page is generally dedicated to the social and ethical implications of stem cell research. Debate about adult stem cell plasticity is probably better placed in the adult stem cell page. I don't see why there couldn't be a short summary of the plasticity argument though, with a ->main article: adult stem cell link.

Dr Aaron 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Aaron, you say "if adult stem cells can be suitably reprogrammed to behave like ES cells, the potential for human reproductive cloning is still there. Also adult stem cells reprogramming may be able to make an "embryo", so there is still the descruction of life argument." Are these "if"s hypothetical or have these things actually been done?

The manufacture of ES cells from adult cells has been successfully done in other organisms and has been claimed to be done in humans (see therapeutic cloning). Dr Aaron 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If these haven't been performed yet, then I would certainly limit the controversy to only embryos, since those are the only things that those who are "religious" and political are complaining about. In fact, even if these experiments have been performed with those exact results, so few people actual know about it (due to the media's skewed concentration on specific issues) that it could, for all intents and purposes, not be used as a reason that warrants the removal of the word "embryo" from the stem cell article.

Additionally, if adult stem cells can be engineered to act like or even become embryos or embryonic stem cells, the controversy still doesn't change: the cells are no longer AS cells; they are ES cells, and, as such, the word "embryonic" should be included in the article. It doesn't matter if those ES cells were previously AS cells or anything else, for that matter; all that matters is that they are ES cells now and thus the controversy surrounds them only because they have become ES cells. --shrinkshooter 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see your point that using therapeutic cloning to convert adult cells into ES cells basically makes them functionally embryonic.

But for good or bad, embryonic stem cell research is commonly referred to as "stem cell research" without the embryonic tag, and thus some of "stem cell controversy" has rubbed off adult stem cell research by name association.

Still, based on your arguments, I'm starting to agree with you that specifying "embryonic" a few more times throughout the article wouldn't do too much harm. And also more clearly making the point that therapeutic cloning using adult cells makes them effectively embryonic stem cells.

I'll think about it some more & read some more articles on the subject before posting again (I don't have full uni journal access from my home computer). Please note that I'm not one of those Wiki contributors that will doggedly stick to their views and not listen to reasoned and convincing argument.

Still, as a general statement, I still feel that the whole page shouldn't be renamed as it will make the page name a bit too bulky & unwieldy.

With respect to the argument that the page should be renamed as the current arguments are mainly ethical, I'd rather see the social arguments be expanded upon than the page made more restrictive by a name change. There are many subjects of social controversy that are poorly discussed at present, e.g. if they are costly, will only rich people be able to benefit from stem cell research?; will the benefits flow on only to developed countries?; what are the different political stances on stem cell research? etc. Dr Aaron 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, I think the majority of people will agree that the major controversy is the ethical debate about the ES source and when approached with the term "stem cell controversy", that's what comes to mind. However, there are a good number of other issues that, while they may not need an entire separate article to address, at least deserve a small discussion. The examples the Dr Aaron presented above are good ones (the social controversy of advanced medical issues in general). One issue in particular that is part of a larger topic is whether people should be able to patent stem cell discoveries. This issue is just a portion of the controversy over biotechnology patents, such as on the human genome, and I think it has a place in this article.

Also, in regards to the therapeutic cloning discussion, it was my understanding that reverting adult stem cells to a more "embryonic" state doesn't mean that you use them to create an embryo and go from there. From the papers that I've read, the reprogramming just enables the cells to multiply like ES cells and revert to a more primitive state where they can differentiate into more cell types. I'll try to track more down, but I'm pretty sure that some specific statements were made, such as in Takahashi, K. et al., Cell, 25 August 2006, to the effect of "these cells will not become embryos" either because they aren't primitive enough to constitute themselves into an embryo or they are kept in the ES like state to multiply the population, after which they are induced to differentiate down a particular path instead of all paths, as a blastocyst would. If this is the case, then the "embryonic" controversy doesn't exactly apply to adult stem cells reprogrammed to behave like ES cells. However, it does introduce its own set of controversies. Takahashi, did the reprogramming by introducing copies of c-Myc, Sox2, Oct3/4, Klf4 into the cells to reset them to an ES-like state. This is a genetic engineering approach, so that is obviously controversial.

Cquan 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that in therapeutic cloning, the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer is used to generate a blastocyst. This blastocyst can develop into an embryo if it is implanted into a surrogate mother, which is the key difference between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. In therapeutic cloning, the blastocysts are dissociated for ES cells. SCNT requires an egg and a donor adult cell from the organism to be cloned. Technically, the cloned cells/organism has "foreign" mitochondrial DNA from the egg donor, which is something that isn't always considered.

The Takahashi paper was a pretty big & recent study (it was in Cell about 6 months ago). The possibility of reprogramming cells without SCNT is one I think is pretty exciting, but the study was only done in mice. Considering how differently mouse ES cells and human ES cells behave (for example the use of LIF in culture media), I'm not sure that these four factors will be sufficient for creating human ES-like cells from adult human cells. Dr Aaron 09:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly respect you for being open-minded and considering the other option, and I would like to mention that I'd like to extend the same to you. Through this small exchange I've learned something new about stem cells, which is good for future reference, but I also understand where you're coming from with name association. Now that I think about it, virtually every time someone says "stem cells" the nearest person instantly thinks "embryos" and "controversy," at least in my experience, because the media has mentally mapped those two components together. As it is, I wouldn't mind now if "embryonic" didn't show up, because of the association people have with the word.

So, it all comes down to this question: do we include the word "embryonic" on a technicality? Or do we overlook it in favor of the fact that almost everyone associates the words "stem cells" with the concept of embryonic stem cell research? All in all an interesting question that leaves us at a fork in the road...ultimately, however, I don't think the submission or omission of a single adjective in an article will make too great of an impact. Your thoughts? --shrinkshooter 06:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename page to Embryonic stem cell controversy?

I've stepped away for a few days and had another iimpartial look over the page. While I still think there are a few things that could be expanded on in terms of the social/political controversy (perhaps link to some of the key figures in the current debate), I acknowledge that the majority of the current page in some way refers to the ethics of generating and using embryonic stem cells (and the associated embryonic destruction). On reflection I'm willing to support a name change to Embryonic stem cell controversy, which suits the current page better than stem cell ethical controversy. I don't think it is 100% necessary, but I don't think it would be too objectionable either.

That is, unless someone can find reference to ethical problems with adult stem cells beyond that of reprogramming them for therapeutic cloning (which basically makes them ES cells anyway), or aside from the confusion of them being indistinguishable from ES cells in many media reports.

But I'm a big fan of not making such a major decision on a controversial page without a good consensus. I might leave a message on the MCB Wikiproject board to get a few people to leave their comments.

If a change is made, then the intro section on What is a stem cell should probably modified to focus on ES cells a bit more (and actively compare with adult stem cells). And the current page should be changed as a redirect to the new page.

Dr Aaron 13:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong agree I'm not aware of any controversy on adult stem cells, especially none covered in this article. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Heartbeats and brainwaves - 9th months

The article on the fetus states:

8 Weeks (condition at start of fetal stage). The risk of miscarriage decreases sharply at the beginning of the fetal stage. At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but they continue to grow, develop, and become more functional. When the fetal stage commences, a fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length, and the heart is beating. The fetus bends the head, and also makes general movements and startles that involve the whole body. Brain stem activity has been detected as early as 54 days after conception.

And unlike the one from the argument, it cites its sources. I didn't delete the argument (the one with "Many scientists belive that homo-sapien life begins..."), because I'm not sure which is correct. Maybe I should've been bold, but... I don't know, thought you'd know better. - Amenzix 01:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was feeling bold, so I edited the argument to generalize to the point that an overarching reference isn't really necessary and I edited the times with references from the Fetus article:

"Some parties contend that embryos are not humans, believing that Homo sapien life only begins when the heartbeat develops, which is during the 8th week of pregnancy, or when the brain begins developing activity, which has been detected at 54 days after conception. "

Hope that irons out that point. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The heartbeat begins before then. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Stemcellresearch.org

I think this web site should be included among those listed at the bottom of the main article page: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ Isaiah58 20:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Disagree. The site is has a lot of obvious bias in the selection of information it is presenting. I have no problem with using the site as a source for information/statements within the article or to gather other sources since it has a large selection of articles and such, but just adding a link to this site will just open up the doors to flood the external links section with pointers to every opinion or POV out there. We should be adding content to the article, not make it a directory of views. If it does get listed by consensus here, it needs to display the full title and even a brief description of the site in the link, because the address itself is misleading (one would think this was a stem cell research organization, but it's a POV-pushing political site). -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Just as a comment, I'm personally very disappointed that one of the founders of this organization was the dean of my university's medical school...I'm just glad he's now a former dean and working as a pastor at a theology school. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.2008uspresident.com

Newly registered user Pharmregulations has added two forms of this link (one for dems and one for reps). A cursory look seems to indicate that it is indeed nonpartisan (though its editing seems only OK for instance it says obama called iraq war a 'DUMB WAR', capitilization theirs). These links have been re-formatted and included on the United States presidential election, 2008 page, so far with no objection. I'm going to remove it for now to see what everybody thinks. . .but I am leaning towards inclusion (but consolidating to 1 link to main page. R. Baley 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.stemcellbattles.com/

This is the blog of Don Reed, the sponsor of California's Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999. It only covers one side of the controversy - and it's the side that I oppose - but it's a link that I'd want to see on the page. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

This institute was established by California Proposition 71 (2004). It only covers one side of the controversy - and it's the side that I oppose - but it's a link that I'd want to see on the page. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Poll results

A compilation of poll results pertaining to stem cell research can be found here. May be useful as a reference. GregorB 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

US Centric

This article is very USA centric (really annoying to read anywhere that isnt America being lumped in as 'international'). I know that the debate is probobly fiercer in the USA because of the stronger religious right there, but i think that the other countries need expanding.213.48.73.89 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree! This "issue" is "controversial" elsewhere also. I usually find excellent world maps which tell you what policies have other countries. Great example is an article about gay marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakunus (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Six years on, the article is still very US-centric, and has no map. Is anyone able to address this? EdwardRussell (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Major US Proponents/Opponents

I don't really know a lot about this subject, but I think it would be helpful to readers to maybe name some proponents of embryonic stem-cell research and some opponents of it in the article, such as Nancy Reagan (should be mentioned as a Republican supporter and with Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's), Michael J. Fox, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, etc. / George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. I also think that the positions of the Republican and Democratic candidates for President of the United States should be mentioned somewhere. Happyme22 04:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved stuff

I just recategorised some of the arguments against stem cell research so they were a bit better organised.

No content or references were removed, although I made a few sections a bit more succinct. Dr Aaron 00:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Extremely biased phrases

Under the section Controversy of embryonic stem cell research, the sentence "The anticipated medical benefits of stem cell research have added a certain amount of emotion and urgency to the debates, which has been exploited by proponents of embryonic stem cell research" contains the biased phrase "which has been exploited." The word "exploited" carries with it extremely biased connotations. I've revised the sentence in question to "The anticipated medical benefits of stem cell research add urgency to the debates, which has been appealed to by proponents of embryonic stem cell research."

The word "some" was added to first paragraph, third sentence. The omission of this word suggested all medical researchers believe that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai429 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

News Flash

In my basement embryonic stem cell research laboratory, I've been making breakthrough after breakthrough (although toward what end I know not). My problem, though, lies in my inability to announce my discoveries. I can't find any evidence of any law(s) prohibiting this type of research in my overgoverned land, but I dare not risk divulging my findings. There just might be a few of those draconian "invisible" laws that "prohibit" such research as I've been doing. This looks to me to be the case with the "research prohibitions" in the evil U.S.A. and certain less-"progressive" nations of western Europe.

It's less a matter of me seeking recognition (or seeking to profit) from my work than it is my desire to share my miraculous findings with the world. If my research is illegal, then so would any treatments that might derive from my work be. I'd do best, then, to take my findings along with me to my grave. 206.148.108.108 21:39, 3 August 2007

It seems like this opinion might be more constructive if it were cited rather than hypothetical and contributed to the article Stem cell research policy rather than posted on the talk page of this article which is about stem cell research controversy.--Jr mints 17:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Just a few comments on my recent reversion to Wolfkeeper's edits.

He removed a statement saying that it is the destruction of embryos that causes the majority of the controversy with embryonic stem cell research. I don't see why this statement needs removal, and I think there is ample cited justification for this statement in the preceding sections.

It was uncited that this is so. Uncited claims may be removed at any time.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He moved and merged a couple of sections into the introduction.

The sections were under the controversy section, but contained no significant controversy. Legal manoeuvrings over patents are not controversy in the normal sense of the word.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While I can see benefits to this, it unfortunately means that the "meat" of the article (i.e. what is controversial about stem cell research) doesn't start until too long into the article.

There is an argument that most or all of the non controversy section should not in the an article called 'Stem cell controversy' at all, and hence should be shortened or removed into a separate article. If you wish to argue as you are, then it seems to me you are essentially arguing that.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It also means that a couple of references to Lanza were made out of order.

So that should be fixed, rather than reverting changes unilaterally.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to such large changes, but I think they need to be more carefully made to preserve the flow of the article as a whole, and also justified on the talk page. Dr Aaron 07:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted, the structure made little logical sense as it was.WolfKeeper 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shinya Yamanaka

Hi, I was just trawling through wikipedia and found this article http://www.zangani.com/node/735 as one of the references to the stem cell page.

It says that with in the next two years, stem cells could be produced by reverting adult cells, such as skin cells, into an embryonic state or something. I'm not a scientist so I don't fully understand the process.

Nor do i know how to edit, so i just thought someone who constantly manages this page would like to check it out and perhaps add something about it? If it is true it would probably be an end to the controversy. Ta. 121.44.218.18 04:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed

I have removed the section "Useless comments too funny to erase". As it is in fact useless. --Logiboy123 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Just wondering if anyone could give me a brief introduction to why there is a debate - why the heck wouldn't we develop something that could restore vision and movement and provide cures for illnesses such as diabetes?

I'm just being introduced to the subject and am very interested and open.

Thanks!

69.54.28.201 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The current methods for developing colonies of viable embryonic stem cells are usually destructive to the embryo, and as such, fall largely within the human rights issues also raised by the abortion debate.

Let me provide a simple analogy, anonymous user.

Imagine a groundbreaking surgical technique for removing the arms and/or legs from living people, and grafting them onto amputees. Let us further imagine that the amputees are war veterans, whose service to the country is beyond monetary value. Let us imagine further that there are several proposed populations from whom to remove the limbs without consent: prisoners incarcerated on life sentences, mentally disabled people, and people who are bedbound or forever unable to walk, such as paralyzed or coma patients. Let us imagine that, one out of five times, the surgery is a failure and the amputee must remain an amputee.

The arguments for compulsory amputation would be primarily utilitarian: "They aren't using their limbs anyway anyway," or "they've given up their rights" in the case of prisoners. The arguments against this would be numerous, including willing consent, human dignity, and human rights.

From the perspective of those who believe human rights apply from birth, this analogy is offensive and invalid. From the perspective of people who believe human rights apply from the moment of conception, this analogy is valid and acceptable.

In America, these two groups typically (though definitely not always) also split along currently polarized public opinion groups in America: Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, collectivist and individualist, nontraditionally religious and conservative evangelical Christian. Each group is, in different situations, either idealist or pragmatist. Also, members of each group have representation in Congress, which controls the distribution of tax revenue for various purposes.

In the cases of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and assisted suicide, the former group is pragmatist, and the latter is idealist. In the cases of war, corporal punishment, and gun rights, the latter is pragmatist, and the former is idealist. Both sides think the other side is made of complete idiots who are on their way to ruining the planet.

The current stalemate is federal funding for all stem cells that do not derive from embryonic destruction, and no criminalization of such research as long as it is funded privately or at the state/municipality level.

The pragmatists argue that this prevents the research, since much is performed at federally-funded universities and/or hospitals with no other funding sources. The idealists argue that this is a good thing, since it prevents further killing of innocent babies. (The rhetoric here is typical in the debate, which grows heated quite easily and frequently.)

Then there are debates about the viability of adult versus embryonic stem cells, and the potential fruitfulness of future research; the article covers that part quite well.

So, anonymous user, you are introduced to the debate. --BlueNight (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When I first heard of stem cell research, the fact that it was under debate didn't surprise me at all; every innovation in science throughout history has met either moral and/or religious opposition. Gallelo with his telescope, Christoper Columbus with his flat vs round world, etc. If it were up to those people, we would have hardly made any progress in much of anything. Thanks to their arrogance, humanity is without a doubt far less advanced than we would be otherwise, and this attitude doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. If people had any sense, they would allow SCR and most other sciences to go on with perhaps a little inhibition but not much, just enough to ensure we don't destroy ourselves in the process.66.41.44.102 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some another ones to add to your ostensible list of "every innovation being met with moral and/or religious opposition: Eugenics, Nazi and Soviet medical experimentation on unwilling victims (you could add Tuskegee secret experiments on blacks. There were no really serious religious or moral oppositions to flat v round world debate, nor to the Gallelo's use of telescopes. In fact the Gallelo debate really is more closely analogous to a question of peer review, consider "cold fusion". After all, some of Gallelo's arguments were patently incorrect, like the one about the earth's rotation causes the tides in the Mediterranean because it slosh the water around!70.22.38.177 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are the others?

Since I don't see them, it's undue weight. Deleting now. Spotfixer (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit removes a viewpoint supported by a reliable source, and does not constitute undue weight according to the WP:UNDUE. I observe that your edit appears to be in bad faith, or at best not correctly considering the wikipedias policies.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The only bad faith here is the religious faith of the person who pasted this text into dozens and dozens of articles, forcing four otherwise occupied editors to waste their time undoing the damage. Go look at my log and you'll see that this is part of a pattern of damage. Spotfixer (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding your argument really rather strange, and personally I strongly support stem cell research and use. How is it that this article almost totally fails to mention any religions views at all? I believe that there's significant degree of religious dogma that is against the use of stem cells, and you just removed a reliable source that pointed to one example of that, indeed the only one in the article. So far as I can tell, you're the one failing to attempt to achieve a neutral point of view. In the wikipedia you don't achieve NPOV by removing information, you get NPOV by including all appropriate POVs. What reason do you have to think that quoting the Catholic churches POV on this topic is undue weight? NPOV is not the lack of POV, it's the ultimate presence of all significant POVs, and it's impossible to get there if everybody deletes notable, cited POVs and claiming NPOV or undue weight as a justification.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I happened to fix up some vandalism to Assisted reproductive technology on random article patrol, and through its history and Spotfixer found this talk page. So, Spotfixer, I apologize for stalking you a little, but maybe as a newcomer to this article I can help.

It seems that 69.157.225.194 made a series of... shall we say, hasty edits to a number of articles, without much regard to their existing content or interrelationships. Although a blanket revert might not have been the best response, it's understandable.

Now, basically I agree with everything Wolfkeeper says about NPOV and inclusion. I'd suggest that, in this article, every significant POV should be noted somewhere, but not necessarily in a section reserved for views of churches. The current sectioning of the article by viewpoint and argument seems to work, and in fact Stem cell controversy#Value of life already mentions the Roman Catholic Church. Other groups could be added similarly. Melchoir (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I asked Wolfkeeper outright to look at my log, it can't possible be stalking for you to do the same. Now that you've seen the rest, I hope you can understand why I've concluded that a blanket revert is the only consistent response to this person's repetitive attempt to force all of these articles to fit into a Catholic POV. It's justified here for the very same reasons it's justified everywhere else.

As you said, we already have mention of the RCC's position, so mentioning it again would be excessive. It would only make sense if we all shared 69's worldview, in which the greatest possible disaster would be for someone not to realize that the Pope opposes something. As this would violate NPOV, it would not be acceptable here. Spotfixer (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, 69.157.225.194's edits don't necessarily reveal or advance that worldview, so from Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith we should avoid inferring it. However, that's not directly relevant to improving this article right now, so I'll leave it there. Melchoir (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Schrandit justifies his changes here.

Go for it. Spotfixer (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Entire Article is Outdated

This entire article is outdated. "Extraction of such cells using current technology requires the destruction of the human embryo." is somewhat incorrect. Equivlanet stem cells (Pluripotent Stem Cells) have already been created (http://en.wikipedia.org/Induced_Pluripotent_Stem_Cell). These stem cells are essentially the same as embryonic stem cells. As such, this article should be rewritten as if it is about something in the past - because it is. We no longer have the controversy because scientists simply use IPS cells and that's it - no need to destroy an embryo, no need for controversy. Athenon (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact a difference between the pluripotent embryonic stem cells and the intial totipotent stem cells Jebus989 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Any animals cured of any disease with embryonic stem cells

The controversy is essential a question medical ethics. So why is there no clear link between this topic and principles and positions found in http://en.wikipedia.org/Medical_ethics.

One of those principles is "first, do no harm" which suggests an apparently agreed ethical concern that animal models must come first.

1. To be NPOV, there must be some exposition on the state of research regarding animal embryonic stem cell research.

2. The prior talk post about outdatedness is important because it may be that induced pluripotent stem cells makes the controversy perhaps outdated; if and only if scientists actual use IPS and funding for stem cell research requires the use of IPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.23.216 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole page is outdated - or apparently so. Misplaced Pages should insist on every entry being dated, particularly with respect to medical research. I read though a large part of this topic then realized that the references were 4-5 years out of date. What's the point of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psnisbet (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The basic "argument" people fail to understand

That an alternative to stem cell research exists, has absolutely no bearing on the validity of stem cell research. You may indeed have "arguments" against stem cell research (which is quite hilarious, considering the vast majority of these are in support of medical testing on adult human corpses), but they are not supported in the instance of an alternative research on the subject, no matter how viable that may be.

Two research methods are not "one too many".

If funding and time is a zero sum game, then funding and spending time on A reduces funding and time spent on B. 70.22.38.177 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference is in how they became corpses in the first place. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And it shows in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.223.86 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Better alternatives"

The wording here is woeful. Research has not shown that adult stem cells show "more promising results" it has shown that adult stem cells have been used successfully in more cases than embryonic stem cells. The former comments on efficacy, while the latter comments on the volume of results. Not to mention that the reference comes from Chrsitianity Today, which for all its grace can't be seen to be a proper research journal. Ninahexan (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not simply of a matter of the fact that adult stem cells have been used successfully in "more" cases than embroyonic stem cells. It is a matter of the fact while adult stem cells have been used successfully in about 73 diseases, embryonic cells have been used successfully in ZERO (0)cases. And, it is well documented that embryonic stem cells result in tumors.70.22.38.177 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

'Viewpoints' section

I don't quite understand the reasoning proposed in the Viewpoints|Efficiency section. The idea that "...an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway, isn't it more efficient to make practical use of it?" is analogous to saying that "...my uncle died of a heart attack, so isn't it more efficient to make practical use of his corpse by eating the meat?" If efficiency is the rationale for an action, cannibalism shouldn't bother anyone, now should it? Just think of the possibilities that such efficiency brings: we could feed all those filthy ragamuffins in Africa just with people-meat! Outside of morality, our decisions can only be based on things like 'efficiency'; and when things like efficiency are our only bases for decision-making, we will undoubtedly come up with truly monstrous policies. This section should have a critique associated with its specious reasoning. --137.186.217.73 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would you use the analogy of cannibalism, rather than the more obvious and fitting analogy of donating organs after death? I find your reasoning not even specious, but rather bordering on the intellectually dishonest, and your argument flawed. I do not support your proposal. Ninahexan (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Organ donation is certainly a fitting analogy too. There is no flaw in this argument; the argument is simple --- efficiency ("We were going to throw it out anyway") does not justify the action. It is specious reasoning to suggest that we rationalise the consumption of human flesh, the harvesting of viable organs or the destroying embryos in the interests of efficiency. For that matter, why don't we make use of all medical waste? There must be a reason that we abhor some things and not others, efficiency notwithstanding. The Nazis were efficient but somehow not admired --- I wonder why.

Specious means having the appearance of reason, while being false- Your argument doesn't even have the appearance of reason. Perhaps next time you will consult a dictionary before accusing others of the very faults that you possess. You say that is it specious reasoning to suggest that we rationalise the use of viable organs for donation in the name of efficiency. Having consulted the dictionary, can you now explain why this reasoning is specious? What is the true reasoning behind it then? By the way, Godwin's Law clearly states that you have lost this argument. Ninahexan (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Efficiency is only one of the arguments, and it is given weight and context by the strength of other arguments. One of those other arguments is that an embryo and your uncle aren't analogous in the first place, because the latter is more of a "person" with individual "human rights" that are difficult to trump with any collective rights of the species. So, where rights-based arguments carry relatively little weight, efficiency-based ones may carry more. Or so the reasoning goes, I think. In any event, the article has both "endorsement" and "objections" sections, and anyone is free to add to either section. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama restored the ban two days after he repealed it

I added this to the article, but someone else took it out.

Two days later, Obama restored Bush's ban when he signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cybercast News Service (CNS) is not a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey - in your edit summary, you said that I had a "misunderstanding of the law." Please explain why I "misunderstood" the law. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And relying upon the primary source of the law to make that assertion is WP:OR. --Bobblehead 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The mainstream media is so biased toward Obama and stem cell research that they refuse to report on this information. Citing the actual law is not original research. People here do that all the time. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You can use primary sources for data and quotes, but you cannot use them to back up claims. You state that Obama "restored Bush's ban", but this is not supported by the source. That is original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that I can use primary sources for quotes. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The caveat to that is that they must also be (a) reliable sources and (b) used sparingly (for example, when secondary sources are not available). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad that the mainstream media has chosen to ignore this. By the way, I'm a 100% pro-choice Libertarian who is very much in favor of this kind of scientific research. I just think it's hilarious that Obama reinstated a ban that he ended two days earlier. Also, this proves that the politicians who vote for bills don't actually read them. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What would be even funnier is if you were informed that you have a "misunderstanding of the law" and then you still didn't bother to educate yourself. BigK HeX (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"In 1999, the president's National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that hESC harvested from embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not from embryos created expressly for experimentation, be eligible for federal funding. Even though embryos are always destroyed in the process of harvesting hESC, the Clinton Administration decided that it would be permissible under the Dickey Amendment to fund hESC research as long as such research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo"- this is already in the existing article, and I am assuming that the creator of this talk section has already read it. Whether you agree with Clinton's advisor's conclusions, you can not argue with the fact that Obama was not re-instating Bush' ban, but rather reverting to what was in effect before Bush came into power. Ninahexan (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009
Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It, CNS News, March 13, 2009

Excommunication

One of the more surprising elements in this debate is that some of the more radical pro-life activists have sought an excommunication for stem cell researchers, since destruction of embryos is compared to abortion, which is anathema under canon 1398. ADM (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Leading researcher dies

One of the "giants in the field," Yury Verlinsky, has recently died. I started a bio on his life which might have details worth including in this article, should any resident editors care to link them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Source 18

This source is no longer available on the internet, if anyone could find a replacement it would be greatly appreciated. Tory88 (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

labeling

opposers of stem cell research should be labeled as terrorists . I am going to start editing--KAWASAKI (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your deletion of a whole section of material. If you have a compelling reason that all that material should go, you could make your case here. Agathman (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Use if the word 'faggot'

Faggot is used during this article under the section "Better alternatives" I am guessing this is trying to be used in a offensive manner, I am unable to get rid of it because I am at my school which is block, word someone please fix this mistake?

I went to look and it had been deleted already :-) Cls14 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Value of life section

I felt that the value of life section centering on the Catholic church was inappropriate as it implied that those who dispute embryonic stem cell research on this grounds do so primarily for religious reasons. I moved the mention of the catholic church to the catholic view point where i feel it belongs.

Sadly I couldn't find a direct citation about the source and end result of embryos used for embryonic stem cell research; it seems implicit in all peer review articles I read. If someone has a citation to add it'd be great. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.185.115 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why no clear link between this topic and Medical Ethics?

The controversy is essential a question medical ethics. So why is there no clear link between this topic and principles and positions found in http://en.wikipedia.org/Medical_ethics.

One of those principles is "first, do no harm" which suggests an apparently agreed ethical concern that animal models must come first.

1. To be NPOV, there must be some exposition on the state of research regarding animal embryonic stem cell research.

2. The prior talk post about outdatedness is important because it may be that induced pluripotent stem cells makes the controversy perhaps outdated; if and only if scientists actual use IPS and funding for stem cell 71.166.126.99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

Biased Background Section

Improvements in the second paragraph of 'Background':

- 'Some researchers are of the opinion that the differentiation potential of embryonic stem cells is broader than most adult stem cells.' the writer appears to be in favor and defending 'adult' stem cells versus the 'embryonic' ones. I thus removed the statement for greater clarity.

- 'Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent' since this being pluripotent isn't a reason but rather a definition derived from the fact that 'a cell can differentiate into all cells of the body' I changed 'because' to 'which is called'

212.41.85.36 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Private Funding Concerns"

I have removed the section entitled private funding concerns. The author of the referenced article conflated a lack of federal funding with a lack of public funding. States and other public entities fund stem cell research - see: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/ Ratagonia (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"better alternatives" scare quotes

Is there a reason behind them. It seems to be taking the POV that the better alternatives section isn't better. While with out the scare quotes it wouldn't be neutral either. Perhaps there's something else this can be named.184.21.236.207 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Research Without Harming Embryos

Somewhere this article could mention the issue of whether embryonic stem cell research can be done without harming embryos. A few years ago somebody supposedly found a way to do that, but I haven't heard much news about it lately. This, of course, would eliminate the ethical issues of embryonic stem cell research.69.181.41.173 (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Objection" section is lacking.

There are many philosophical claims and various arguments made about human life in the "Endorsement" section. However, there are many similar claims and arguments to be made in the "Objection" section, not just that there are "better alternatives". The wiki page on Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate outlines these contrary arguments very well, and as of now these arguments are not well represented in this article. I think that either the "Endorsement" and "Objection" sections should be eliminated in favor of a direction to the "Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate" page, or the the various arguments on that page should be better represented in the "Objection" section. As of right now, the anti stem cell argument is very poorly represented.2601:281:8100:A03E:4D44:8AB2:EAA2:E814 (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stem cell controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/08/ustem108.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of a Not Cited Statement in Backgrounds

I would like to remove the line that states "However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become. In addition, embryonic stem cells are considered more useful for nervous system therapies, because researchers have struggled to identify and isolate neural progenitors from adult tissues" it requires a citation and one has not been provided for it. The statement should be removed from the data as this is a controversial topic and this statement might lead to bias on one side or the other while it is not backed up by any sources. I will attempt to find an academic source but for now I believe it should be removed.

Alfab007 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stem cell controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090318065009/http://www.foxnews.com:80/politics/first100days/2009/03/14/obamas-approval-stem-cell-research-needs-congressional-action/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/14/obamas-approval-stem-cell-research-needs-congressional-action/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Subsection Regarding Jewish View of Stem Cell Use

I propose deleting the "Jewish view" subsection under the "Religious Views" section.

First, the subsection is poorly sourced and even misattributes the name of the organization Rabbi Halperin is associated with (the actual name of the organization is the Institute for Science and Halacha).

Second, the title and content of this subsection seem to imply that a single Orthodox rabbi's opinion and the alleged lack of regulation around stem-cell research in the State of Israel reflect the entirety of Jewish thought on this topic.

Judaism is not a single religious practice (many denominations exist) nor is it centralized in the same way the Catholic Church, for example, is. Further, atheist Jews are not constrained by the opinions of any Jewish religious leader.

Additionally, the State of Israel does not speak for or represent all Jewish people on Earth. The fact that Israel has supposedly not enacted any legal restrictions around stem cell research does not in any way act as direct evidence that all or a majority of Jews (religious or otherwise) hold permissive views on stem cell research.

While a properly sourced subsection citing the stated beliefs of a diverse cross section of Jewish groups, leaders, religious scholars, etc. might paint a clearer picture of majority and minority Jewish opinions on this matter, the subsection as it is currently written is woefully inadequate and misleading. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Categories: