http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110609084815.htm

A research breakthrough has proven that it is possible to reprogram mature cells from human skin directly into brain cells, without passing through the stem cell stage. The unexpectedly simple technique involves activating three genes in the skin cells; genes which are already known to be active in the formation of brain cells at the fetal stage.

The new technique avoids many of the ethical dilemmas that stem cell research has faced.

So what does everyone think? From the sounds of it, this may be a quicker solution to Parkinson's but who know what else it may lead to. I'd also imagine this research would open up a great deal more funding for other research that previously used stem cells!

I do not understand the outlash at stem cell stuff.

Sounds like pot heads CAN get brain cells back!!!!

There is hope for Heretic yet!!!!!!!!!

I Wear Pants;802064 wrote:I do not understand the outlash at stem cell stuff.

+1

The main thrust of this article is that cells can be directly reprogrammed without using stem cells which is a huge advantage given the high risk of tumor formation with stem cell transplantation. It is a big discovery scientifically, and it bypasses the ethical arguments against stem cell harvesting.

I Wear Pants;802064 wrote:I do not understand the outlash at stem cell stuff.

The concern is with embryonic stem cells, not with stem cells in general. For embryonic stem cells, you basically create a lot of babies, then kill them and harvest the cells. Growing babies for spare parts rubs many people the wrong way.

I disagree that you "grow babies" though that's a fruitless conversation as it just turns into a "baby killer"/"it's not a baby" arguement.

I Wear Pants;802424 wrote:I disagree that you "grow babies" though that's a fruitless conversation as it just turns into a "baby killer"/"it's not a baby" arguement.

Right--if it's a bunch of undifferentiated cells with no humanity, only human potentiality, then it's not something that should be a controversy. If, on the other hand, life begins at conception, then we're creating life to grow spare parts, which seems pretty clearly a bad idea. Whether this is completely innocuous or horribly immoral depends on your view of when life begins.

I guess I took your statement that you didn't understand the controversy along the lines of, "I'm confused--why would anyone be upset about this?" as opposed to, "I understand the reasoning behind why people are upset about it, but I think they're ridiculous." To the extent that you don't understand why people lash out at the idea of this, I wanted to crystallize the debate for you: many people quite reasonably have moral qualms with the idea.

If they replace brain cells with skin cells from your penis, it opens up a whole new world of comedy.

I Wear Pants;802064 wrote:I do not understand the outlash at stem cell stuff.

Having to "dispose" (or kill depending on your definition of life) of babies/fetuses/clumps of embryonic cells/whatever to get the stem cells.

Most who have an ethical problem with stem cell research only have a problem with the embryonic stem cell research (which I happen to have a problem with). I did however donate all 3 of my kids umbilical cord to stem cell research.