Stem Cell Research Breakthrough

A new study on stem cells has produced what I think is spectacular results. Researchers were able to gather stem cells (from mice embryos) without destroying the embryo. Here's the full article. (Link's broken. What the hell is it with Yahoo News and their links breaking after like a week? Do they not archive anything? Oh, well, here's an article, it's only relevant for two days, then we'll throw it away, wheeeee!! WTF.) Here's an excerpt.

One of the new mouse studies borrowed a lab technique used in fertility clinics, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or PGD. It is used to screen embryos for genetic disorders.

In the study, researchers plucked a single cell from eight-cell mouse embryos, which were about two days old. While fertility clinics use such a cell for genetic testing, the researchers cultured the plucked cells and found they behaved like embryonic stem cells. The embryos, meanwhile, went on to produce mice.

The result suggests that when clinics do PGD, they could let the cell they remove divide into two, and use one resulting cell for genetic testing and the other to establish a stem cell line, said Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., an author of the study.

That's fantastic. Now the fundies don't have a leg to stand on in their relentless opposition to stem cell research. If you can get stem cells without destroying an embryo (or in their words, "taking a life"), then what's the fucking problem? Well, a lack of a logical reason never stopped fundies. Look at the very next paragraph of the article.

But Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities for the Catholic bishops conference, said PGD itself is unethical. It poses a risk of harm and is mostly an effort "to select out genetically imperfect embryos," he said.

Aww, it poses a risk of harm. A lot of prenatal procedures pose a risk of harm, like the sampling of amniotic fluid to check for birth defects, or CVS testing. Does that mean they shouldn't be performed? In some cases, yes. But just because the chance for harm is there, doesn't mean it outweighs the possible benefits.

And what the fuck is wrong with selecting out genetically imperfect embryos? I wouldn't want a kid who would have a significantly lower quality of life than normal because he had Down's syndrome, didn't physically develop properly, or was going to have a terminal illness and not live past the age of 10. Oh, but that's right, fundies don't like abortion. Every life is sacred, even if it's a fucked up one. They take the moral highground, but if push came to shove, they'd think twice about carrying an "imperfect" baby to term.

Let's look at the other technique outlined in the article.

As with normal therapeutic cloning, they took eggs whose DNA-containing nuclei had been removed and inserted in each one a nucleus from a body cell of a mouse. But before the insertion, they blocked the action of a key gene in the nuclei, to ensure the eggs could not produce an embryo that can implant in a uterus. Yet, the eggs divided and grew enough to yield stem cells.

This modified technique, called altered nuclear transfer, has been championed by Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford University, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He said the abstract cluster of cells the egg produces is not an embryo but a "non-embryonic entity" that lacks an embryo's developmental potential.

"You don't create a living being," he said.

That's also fantastic. What do you have to say about this one, fundies?

Doerflinger disagreed, saying the technique appears to create and then destroy an embryo, which would make it unethical.

The technique appears to create an embryo? It appears? Is that your professional, scientific observation? No, it's just your kneejerk reactionary bullshit. Let the folks with the doctorates say what appears to happen, dickwad.

But not all fundies are as ignorant as Doerfucker, there.

But the Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, director of education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, called the approach a step in the right direction. Scientists are already discussing a modified version in which adding the nucleus to the egg would result in a single stem cell, not an embryo, he said.

Seen in that light, he said, the mouse study "is very encouraging. It reminds us that we have certain tools at our disposal in the scientific armamentarium that can be used in the direction of seeking an answer to the ethical impasse."

He's not saying this is the answer, but he's not putting his fingers in his ears and humming, either. Maybe this means we'll actually have some real progress in the stem cell arena, and start fixing shit. Maybe. I wouldn't count on it.