Furry stem cell research

Check this out. Maybe "real" furries are closer than we think!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6107796.stm
I know it's not quite there yet, but it's close!

Well true that is a small step closer to a real furr but it's not really that great a step. Most of the cell will be human. The nuclious of the cell is were the DNA is. So a animal cell with it's own nuclious removed and a human one planted would be almost 100% human. There's be not physical similarites between a pereson that developed from it and the animal. But that's not to say we can't cross biological boundries and make a human animal hybrid. It's possible it's just ethics that are keeping scientist from doing it for the moment. And if history is any indicatior those ethics won't stand in the way for long. Usually when something can be done it will be done wither or not the consequences are thought though or not.

All true, and of course I'm against creating life for research purposes. The article goes into how they're making embryos to study diseases. My own father works in a research hospital and they buy thousands of mice a year to study different diseases and such. Some are genetically produced to have disorders such as MS and diabetes etc. Most are killed in the course of research. I didn't mean to be cavalier about the ethics of the article, I just thought the research would be interesting to furries.

Man should not meddle in the affairs of Nature







S'all I'm sayin

Well to that I'll say this. Science has the potiantial for great good or other wise. It's all in how ya use it. And well I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't bring a creature into this world if your only going to kill it later to have it spend the rest of it's days being poked and prodded. But sadly the history of science shows that if it can be done. Some day it will be done. Wither or not it's right.

important updates

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080519-AP-hybrids.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL191558520080519?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews

and once you have read this I have one other thought
it took the U.S of A an entire war and tons of struggle to get black and white people to get along

in the darkest of that time there was even a black child that was kept in some zoo I think was in europe with apes to show how inferior the black race was and they they were the missing link like charales Darwins Book

"origins of species and the superiority of the white race".

Now I ask you if this goes very far and beings that are not only part human part animal and may not only look diffrent but act diffrent due to instincets (we know what acting diffrent gets you)

These being will be made with the purpose of being test subjects and nothing more.

THAT WILL BE THERE ORIGINAL PURPOES FOR BEING!

What do you think the chances are of getting those ""THINGS"" the rights they deserve considering there ment as putty for peetree dishes and to be spliced open on cold meatal slabs?

Both articles state that the proposed law would ban growing the embryo past 14 days. There would never be an actual 'being' involved. A two week old embryo is microscopic and consists of about 2 dozen cells.

thats why I asked "if this goes very far"
as in how long do you think that 14 day law will last?

I would hope that the majority of people on this planet would be against crafting living creatures simply for our own convenience. Stem cells are one thing, but growing a full-fledged animal, especially a sentient one, simply to prove we can is troubling.

This is.... Disgusting! Humans have no right to meddle with life like this!

I just heard about this stuff and thought it might be important
I was going to make a new topic but then I remebered I saw this one somewhere and its the same subject

btw, why dosn't putting a user name in the search engin work? I knew poco had written it so I put "poco" in the engin and it didn't work and neither dose mine...

as for stem cells first of all I am "pro life" but even besides that I don't know why scientists still think fetal stem cells are needed plain old.

If they are used that would be forieng DNA and you would need anti rejection medication to keep from complications and thats hoping that the stemcells won't go free adjent on you and start collinizing diffrent parts of your body like that one girl who got the new liver and it took over her whole system. what if a few of those blanks decide to become bone marrow like if a whole hand is produced and the DNA they have causes them to become a diffrent blood type than you, you would get clots every where and thats just the begining of the problems multiple DNA sets could cause.

There are adult stem cells that can be used in various parts of the body. they say they are hard to get to but what if they put all that effort they are putting into politics and getting the fetal cells to work into finding a safe extraction meathod

And why extract them? there is a company that is working with army vets and amuties that uses a substance extractied from the bladder, kidney or pancrius of pigs that can cause limbs to grow back.(it was one of the three but I don't remember which though I do remember thinking "eww" so I think it was the bladder)

I know they were speaking to a guy that re-grew and entire finger including finger print and I'm pretty sure they said someone else grew back their entire hand.
why don't they just stop fiddling with those cell that cause contriversy when there is a meathod that causes almost no contriversy and works better as far as we can see

I think they just don't want to show that someone has power over them and no one can control them and tell them what to do and they just want to win to make a statement

I actually don't have a problem with this kind of testing, as in scientific testing for the sake of humanity. I'm not saying that I'm always for genetic research, but I think that there is a lot of potential that can come out of this.

Besides, to put things into perspective, genetic testing on human and vertebrates only takes place after through research has already been conducted. Scientists don't randomly throw genes together and hopes something good pops out. But at least there is a potential for good.

And the reason why stem cell research should go on even with that "regrowing powder" which I am aware of, even that powder works according to the principles that stem cell research is trying to understand. It is not a competition to see who was right.

And I give you another thing to think about. In genetic research, the cells involved usually don't grow into a full being yet and those that do are treated the same way you'd expect farm animal to be or a pet, minus amount of human contact. A laboratory mouse is given food, water, a clean environment and will be euthanized if dissection is require.

That is more than we can say for the rabbits who have their eyelids slit off after mascara has been applied in order to test for irritation of the cornea, or mice who have their stomachs pumped full of shampoo... or maybe a dish detergent. That is where I would focus: the cosmetics industry. Or how about this: fur-farms? Rabbits, foxes, what have you, bred, inbred, living in the most miserable conditions, just to be skinned for their fur? Even more gruesome: foie-gras ducks. Ducks who live in cages that they just fit, and I mean fit as in, they can't shift their weight or even open their wings. Force-fed with a metal bar suck in their throat, vomit all over the place, and many who die of suffocation as vomit gets stuck in their throat. And all for what? For the sake of some person wanting to taste the diseased organ of a duck.

I'm just trying to say that laboratory animals don't have it the worse. Does that mean that we forget about bioethics? No. Bioethics is most definitely a big thing. There are of course limits to set as to what can be done. I just like to know as much as I can before taking a side.

As for the side I'm leaning towards right now, I don't have a problem with genetic research, and here's why.

When surgery first appeared, you have no idea how much, not controversy, but literally uproars when the medical community of the time found out. The majority of the people said that they should stick to traditional medicine and that cutting up a person's body was almost heretic. The main example I love to use is as follows: When guns first appeared, obviously, they penetrated the body, and do you know what was the "traditional" way of treating a bullet wound or just about any kind of deep laceration (cut)? Cauterization: applying metal heated to being white on top of a wound, or boiling oil on top of the wound, so to stop the bleeding. Did it work? Somewhat, yes. The heat killed bacteria and the bleeding stopped. But of course, the tissues all around the area were destroyed too, and the people often died of shock after that.

We accepted surgery as part of being normal. We accepted that crossing the barrier that is skin is okay. So... is passing the barrier that is the cell membrane so horrible?

There are limits to set, that is absolutely true and I will never agree to letting science and scientists and the people who fund them who are looking to get money out of their knowledge, I'll never accept to let them go absolutely free and do whatever they want. But, I think that saying that research should be halted or that what they're doing should not be so because it's unethical, first of all, there's the previous example about the other animals, second of all... people are still going to do it. If those of us who are perfectly healthy think that it should not be done, what about those people who suffer from cancer, from muscular dystrophy, from Parkinson's or Alzheimer's... is it fair that those of us who can do without the outcome of that research sentence them, and the future sufferers of those disease to continue suffering because we think it should not be done? Of course, not to say that they are absolutely unbiased, but we mustn't forget why that research is happening.

I realize that I am biased, but I expressed my points of view and was not trying to convince anyone to think like me. I'm just saying, try to know as much as you can, from as many sources as you can, understand the risk and benefits, pros and cons, from multiple sources, even those you disagree with, to have as much background before making a decision.

It's not a simple debate.

I suppose that you do raise a very good point about the testing on the young cells to understand the actions of the old ones even if young stem cells tend to act diffrently then old ones, but thankyou for bringing up that perspective.

I still think that working directly with the powders would be more effeciant or finding a way to harvest adult stemcells would be better.

As for the slicing of rabit eyelids and the "puuuke-king" duck I was not aware of this and I will make mental notes the next time I that data is relivent, and as you can see I am more than "sort of" into the world of politics so I'm sure they will be relivent at some point in time

I am not afraid of change and will move if I am given a good reason and I don't feel like I am being presured