SPEW: First club 'meeting'

[beatific.livejournal.com]

Hey, people! (:

This is the first ever post for SPEW [Society for the Protection of Elvish Welfare, though that's not all we'll be talking about XD], and I hope that I'll receive better feedback than Hermione did in the books! ;D

I'm opening this up with a general sort of discussion so that it's easier for people to jump in. No points for now--just a nice, easy way to get the hang of it and test the waters, to see if you like it.




SPEW is:

A forum/club in which the members may discuss controversial subjects of both Potterverse and related to current events. It's a club focused on circulating ideas and opinions--in a VERY polite manner. I guess you could say that the motto of SPEW is, uhm...well, I'm terrible with making up mottos, but it's probably something like "Have fun and be polite". Which is terrible, really. [Feel free to come up with a motto of your own XD]

But uhm, all in all, it's a place where people can talk about the things that are going on in both our world and Harry's, and where we can bounce ideas off of each other and learn from each other that way. Ignorance and indifference are truly the most dangerous things in the world--so lets work together to spread some knowledge about what's going on in the world. (:




OKAY! This week/halfofthemonth's topic is:


Recently, a group of scientists at Edinburgh University have created the first pure batch of nerve stem cells from human stem cells. Do you think stem cell research is ethical? Should it be considered a form of cloning, or is it an important scientific discovery that will enhance the medical field and help cure diseases? Remember to back up your opinion!


For more information, go here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4562235.stm


Unfortunately, I'm going to be up in NorCal looking at Unis, so I may not be able to participate in this discussion a lot. I apologize beforehand, but I PROMISE to check up on this as much as possible. If this turns out well, I might post another topic next week and turn it into a weekly thing (:.




Now, don't disappoint me like Hogwarts disappointed Hermione! Join in and spread the SPEW love (:

Comments

[firestar182.livejournal.com]

Being a scientist, I think that there are alot of benefits in Stem Cell Research but I also think there is alot of ambiguity to the ethical nature of stem cell research.

If the stem cells are not harvested in a way that would devalue human life then stem cell research is very valuable and has the potential to save many lives. Depending on your feelings on abortion, some people believe that the aborted fetuses should be used so at least they are not completely wasted. Personally I think this is atrocious and is an act against the value of human life. I agree that these fetuses could save lives but there has GOT to be a better way to obtain stem cells.

Currently, in the US, we are working with already created cell lines which have proved to possibly be contaminated which does not bode well for stem cell research in the US, but in Europe many people are doing stem cell research and making alot of progress.

I think no matter what the ethical nature of the research is, we will not be able to control it or keep it on an ethical track. However, the new medical technologies that are developed through this research will surely be implemented into hospitals and used to save lives of people who are sick and dying. I don't actually have a stand on this because it is an inner struggle for me between the right for a child to live and the right for an adult to live and the scarcity of resources.

*stops rambling*

[beatific.livejournal.com]

I think no matter what the ethical nature of the research is, we will not be able to control it or keep it on an ethical track.


So you mean that no matter what, there is no way that stem cell research will be ethical, right? In that case, do you consider the four or five day old lab-grown embryos to be human life? And what about in the case of adult stem cells, which although not as flexible, still have some potential?

PS: I like your rambling (:
PPS: This is somewhat off topic, but what's your stance on abortion?

[firestar182.livejournal.com]

I just mean that no matter what I think about the ethics of stem cell research, it won't be controlled. Maybe in the US, but Europe is going all kinds of crazy with it. AND we will eventually be using the technologies developed by stem cell research in the medical world.

I don't necessarily think that all stem cell research is unethical, but I think that when they kill life or create life to be used it's not good. I think that anything that has the potential to be a life and is not given the right to live is unethical. So creating embryos in a petri dish...well, if they'd have been implanted they would have grown into something, but if they are past the time period for implantation...sure. If that makes any sense.

Abortion. Well I don't think that the government has the right to control some forms of abortion because we don't really know when life begins and there is no scientific evidence to completely prove when life begins. If the government controls it, then it's going completely on a moral and religious basis and that is a violation of many people's rights. While I, personally, do not like abortion and I think that it's wrong, I do think that it would also be wrong for the government to control it. As a nursing student, I would refuse to assist with an abortion but I would not try to force my opinion on abortion about anyone and I would not turn my back on anyone who had an abortion. I personally believe if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex. I mean, pregnancy is a direct consequence of sex, right?

[hxcpunkchick.livejournal.com]

I just mean that no matter what I think about the ethics of stem cell research, it won't be controlled. Maybe in the US, but Europe is going all kinds of crazy with it. AND we will eventually be using the technologies developed by stem cell research in the medical world.

I don't necessarily think that all stem cell research is unethical, but I think that when they kill life or create life to be used it's not good. I think that anything that has the potential to be a life and is not given the right to live is unethical.

For some reason, this statement made me think of the movie The Island. I don't know if you've seen the movie or plan to, but I don't think what I'll mention will spoil you. In this future, cloning is regulated. It is allowed to occur as long as it doesn't fully develop and stays in a vegetative state. Obviously, the complany does not adhere to these laws. They realise that there's a better chance of survival if it's allowed to gain a conscience. But then there's nothing wrong with giving the clones a false hope of going somewhere, when their intenet is to harvest the clone for certain organs, or a baby in some cases.
I realise this is a movie, but for some reason think that it's very possible that something like that would happen. Government would attempt to control these things, trying to keep things ethical, and companies would seek to find loopholes.

tif.Slytherin.

[zillah-mahala.livejournal.com]

I've seen the film, and I agree - people will always try and find loopholes to exploit in order to garner dollars for supplying a product. If they can't sell the product, they can't profit.. so if the product won't function without being concious, then they'll make it so.

Cloning opens up a whole other kettle of fish with respect to stem cell research though - whether it would be ethical to essentially begin the cloning process in order to harvest stem cells for a person with their own DNA - thus avoiding any of the immune complications? It could be argued that you could use immature cell lines within adult tissue which have some degree of pluripotencey - like cells in your bone marrow can develop into different blood and immune cells etc. But depending on the problem, this may not possible. Brain and muscle cells don't have immature precursors, for example, and those with a genetic anomally since birth obviously wouldn't be able to use their own faulty cells.

It's probably best I stop rambling now, though. XD Sorry for straying from your post a little!

Sara//Ravenclaw

[beatific.livejournal.com]

[Noo, you're opening up the discussion, it's good (:]

[firestar182.livejournal.com]

Companies will always try to do whatever they can to get the biggest buck for their bang. haha.

I haven't seen that movie though I'd like to.

Megan/ Claw

[zillah-mahala.livejournal.com]

I agree with your statement of stem cell research not being controlled, regardless of the ethics of the situation. It is the nature of science to progress, and for people to progress with it - we've started down this path, and controversial or not, it has piqued a lot of interest. People will follow it regardless. It does have a lot of potential in medicine though, and indeed if further break throughs are made, I'm sure we'll see it applied worldwide over a period - regardless of whether the countries have been directly involved in that calibre of research or not. If it saves lives people often turn the other cheek. But we have a ways to go yet, so who knows when these things will actually be upon us?

So creating embryos in a petri dish...well, if they'd have been implanted they would have grown into something, but if they are past the time period for implantation...sure. If that makes any sense.

That does make sense, but just for clarification - you're saying that you have less of a problem with harvesting stem cells from laboratory created embryos /beyond/ the point where they should have been implanted, and thus been able to develop? As long as it's beyond that point? For some reason I find that an interesting stance - not a bad one.. it just seems to contrast a little with what you stated above that.

I think that when they kill life or create life to be used it's not good. I think that anything that has the potential to be a life and is not given the right to live is unethical.

Personally, I would have seen creating an embryo as creating a life - we consider single cells 'living things' as opposed to viruses, which are seen as ambiguous. But I understand your point as well, being multicellular organisms - we need a lot more than a cell or two to survive. But even so, an embryo does still have the potential to develop into that 'more', and we are denying it that by not implanting it and using its cells elsewhere. Humm.. I personally don't have an issue with this process, but I can certainly see why one would. I'm just a little confused by your stance, I suppose. Don't feel you have to clarify it though, it does make sense. My thinking is just a little different and as such, I don't see it in quite the same way. XD

[firestar182.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess I mean that sometimes they create the embryos and then the people decide not to have them implanted or they become unused for one reason or another and those embryos are going to sit there unused and go to waste or be trashed, but they've already been created and they weren't created for the specific purpose of being used for research, so why not use them.

Like if people are going to abort babies then maybe they shouldn't go to waste, but the problem is that people are being paid for their fetuses and that bodes of an even further issue of are people getting pregnant and having abortions for the money...because that would be a travesty (personally) and completely unethical. I don't know too much about this particular practice(the selling of fetuses) but my sister has done quite a bit of research on this and it's kind of frightening.

Like you said above people will often turn the other cheek with things that are life saving and have the potential to cure the uncurable diseases. I see this most in people who are adamant about animal rights. All the drugs that we have, were tested on animals. There is not other alternative out there according to the FDA right now, but people will often ignore that fact to save lives. A little off subject, sorry.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. It's been a busy day.

[zillah-mahala.livejournal.com]

Not a problem - thanks for the insight. :) For some reason the thought didn't occur to me about there being embryos 'left over' from potential implantations and the like, and thus having a different purpose from the beginning. I agree that it's worth not wasting them.

Personally I don't have much of a problem with the use of aborted fetuses - I believe you said earlier some people were of the opinion that 'at least they don't go to waste' ..which admittedly does sound a bit awful - I can see why you wouldn't agree with it. But I'm all for not wasting things and seeing their potential. But people being paid for their fetuses is just abhorrent - that certainly is going to cause problems. I'm not against abortion, but I think some people are starting to treat it as a form of birth control, which it most certainly is not. It should be left as a last resort.. and giving a monetary incentive for it to occur is just stupid. I imagine the results of the research would be frightening. Dear me..

[sarahdocbb.livejournal.com]

I personally find this information very exciting and wonderful. Being pro-choice, the fact that the fetuses are being used doesn't really bother me. Instead of forcing people to bring children into this world that will not be properly cared for, we should be working to save the ones already here. Now I am not saying I condone the use of abortions as a form of birth control, but with the interest of science, progression, and saving lives, they are neccessary.

I just wish that the government in American wasn't trying to run our lives as much as it does, and would allow us to make our own decisions and choices. Furthermore, they also need to stop stalling our scientific studies, and let us advance to the level of the other countries working to develop new cures.

Sarah
Gryffindor

[beatific.livejournal.com]

I just wish that the government in American wasn't trying to run our lives as much as it does, and would allow us to make our own decisions and choices.

Alright, for your stance here, my question is: Have the American people chosen to be pro-stem cell? How can we tell that it's just the government holding the people back?

It is true, though, that sometimes, with our 'make sure everyone likes what we do' government, things progress much slower than in other countries.

And [ack, I'm getting off topic again x_x] what do you consider too late to abort? Second, third trimester? When the organs begin to develop?

[sarahdocbb.livejournal.com]

Well whether the American people have chosen to be for or against it doesn't make a difference as of yet, because of the government. I know that there are many people against it, but if we the people were given the choice there is the possibility of a majority vote for it.

And it seems that the government isn't trying hard enough to make sure everyone likes what they do, and they aren't going to be able to, with the many different oppinions, so no matter what we will progress much slower than other countries unless the government switches to more of a 'this is what is going to happen' type.

Well I would have to go with what the medical professionals say is too late. Because whether organs and such are starting to develop or not, it isn't my business if someone wants a abortion. And sometimes there is the need for later abortions due to complications and birth deffects not being detected until further into the pregnancy.

Sarah/Gryffindor

[mandagemini.livejournal.com]

Such a controversial topic for the first meeting! Apologies for randomness and disorganization...I've deleted several of my paragraphs because I can't seem to convey what I mean in a proper manner. I've left the basic stuff down, though.

To me, there's nothing unethical about stem cell research because I don't think that small clusters of cells are truly human beings. I don't consider an embryo to be a human. It would be different if they were forcing mothers to abort babies to get these cells. They're not. They're using donated egg and sperm cells to create the embryos in the lab. The way I see it, nobody's being hurt and only good can come from it.

And if I DID adhere to the theory that harvesting the cells came from human beings, I would have to think that in a case like this, the benefits would outweigh the downside. Once they get stem cells, they can divide into many different kinds of cells and thus benefit more people than were harmed. The article also mentioned that stem cells could be used to produce tissues to test new drugs on. Isn't that better than subjecting fully-formed adults to potentially deadly medications? Wouldn't that help stop the current experimentation on human beings and animals? The need for animal testing would be greatly reduced if you could test on human tissues.

I sincerely hope that the stem research that is happening in other countries will help cure diseases. Can you imagine if they suddenly figure out it's not going to work? I doubt that'll happen, but still. Even then, though, I think that's why it's called "research." In lab classes, we are taught to expect the majority of our experiments to fail. It's a process. Unfortunately, it seems that most people want an answer NOW (this is the root of several current cultural crises, in my opinion) and aren't willing to wait for the results.

As a biology major, I was absolutely mortified when people turned my class into a forum for political debate. There were snide comments made about "Monkey Liberals" and "Bush is an idiot." For me, the separation between politics and science should be clean-cut. However, because of funding issues, it most certainly will never be that way.

Manda, Slytherin

[sarahdocbb.livejournal.com]

You were able to put your thoughts down SO much better than I did. Wonderful comment.

Sarah/Gryffindor

[beatific.livejournal.com]

Hahahha, well this club thrives on controversy ;)

And if I DID adhere to the theory that harvesting the cells came from human beings, I would have to think that in a case like this, the benefits would outweigh the downside.

What many who are against abortion and stem cell research are arguing is that while an adult has lived part of his/her life, a embryo/fetus is still growing, so basically abortions and the like are keeping them from having the possibility of having a full life. They argue that since the adults have been able to have a full life, or something close to it, the embryos should take precedence over the adults.

Also, some say that using stem cells to cure diseases is messing with natural selection and weakening the human race :O Just something I thought I'd throw out there XD


Politics and controversial decisions in science, much like politics and religion, should be clean cut, but alas, probably never will. ): It's one of the great tragedies of our political system.

[mandagemini.livejournal.com]

Also, some say that using stem cells to cure diseases is messing with natural selection and weakening the human race.

Well, let's just get rid of everything that helps us then, right? XD Forget medicine, man...let's go run naked in the forests. Oh, wait. We can't. They're almost completely destroyed or under special government protection. I do understand the point; however, it seems to me that we're in too far to have that stance anymore. If we really wanted to bring back natural selection, we'd have to go back much further than stem cell research.

Manda, Slytherin

[beatific.livejournal.com]

HAHAHAHAHA XD Running naked in the forests...YES let's DO IT! We can start our own commune sort of thing...foraging for berries together and all. Hahahahhaha!!

And that's very true. I've also heard that about...well, all medicine in general XD It's a very radical idea to have. I'm torn about it though: even though it IS weakening the human race, I think it's impressive that we are able to weaken ourselves in such a...positive manner. >_> If that makes sense.

[mandagemini.livejournal.com]

I see medicine as basically and "advanced" form of adaptation. Instead of only adapting the individual, we adapt as a society. We're helping the weakest but at the same time, we're weakening the strongest - which some forms of natural selection do because the "middle" is indeed the "fittest" to the environment. There's a term for that, and I'm going to look it up later on. But, as it is, I'm getting ready to go to my Chemistry class and can't think Biology right now. Gah.

Manda, Slytherin

[firestar182.livejournal.com]

As a biology major, I was absolutely mortified when people turned my class into a forum for political debate. There were snide comments made about "Monkey Liberals" and "Bush is an idiot." For me, the separation between politics and science should be clean-cut. However, because of funding issues, it most certainly will never be that way.

I'm a double major in biology and nursing and I couldn't agree more! I think that the government needs to back off of the sciences and let them control themselves.

[mandagemini.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. In an ideal world, those involved in medicine and research would be doing it only out of natural curiosity and to further knowledge. It would be perfectly outside of the moral realm. Unfortunately, people who want to actually use the scientific advances are getting much more involved these days. Thus, we get people who want to exploit it and use it for their own agenda (moral or not), and that corrupts the research. (This is very evident in the carbs-are-evil debate).

Manda, Slytherin

[firestar182.livejournal.com]

Science is becoming a tool for companies to manipulate into a lucrative profit. It doesn't matter to them what the truth behind the actual science is. I have seen this so much in the health supplements industry lately. I'm almost scared to buy vitamins off the shelf because there is nothing to guarantee that it has any sort of vitamin actually in it.

I've been doing alot of research into antioxidant companies and I heard this story about how this one company was looking for antioxidants to put in their products and they went to a green tea company which said they had the highest amount of antioxidants possible in their products. When they got the product and tested it, there was absolutely NO antioxidant protection in it at all.

They used the science behind antioxidants to sell false products to people who thought they were protecting their bodies. It makes me sick.

I also don't understand why scientists can't all be on the same side. Instead of name calling, we need to be banding together to protect our rights and authorities as scientists and researchers.