Bluie wrote:
Gbaji I don't know what's happening with stem cell research in the US but the scenario you paint is quite disgusting. Are you sure that's right about using aborted fetuses?
Yes and no. I was actually referring to the IVF you talk about, but there is no reason why they couldn't.
Um. And just to clarify. It's an *embryo*. Not a fetus. Lots of people have confusion there as well (fueled on in part by deliberate misuse of the terms by anti-abortion activists).
An embryo is the first phase of development. It's a fertilized egg, but bears no resemblance to anything at all. It's just a clump of tissue. The reason there's confusion is because the anti-abortion people will show you a picture of a fetus to be more "graphic" about what's being aborted. With the exception of 2nd trimester abortions (done only in cases of health risk in most states in the US), what's aborted is an embryo. Once it's developed into a fetus, it's generally past the age to be aborted.
Quote:
In Australia, we basically use frozen unwanted fetuses from the IVF process. Once a family has the children they want from IVF they can choose to donate the unwanted fetuses to stem cell research instead of having them destroyed. Of course these are just very tiny groups of cells, much smaller than anything that would be aborted, they are at the very very early stage when a woman wouldn't even know she was pregnant.
Yes. But in the US, I don't think doctors are allowed to do that yet (I honestly haven't been following all the laws). My understanding is that an embryo is an embryo is an embryo. I know I read something that talked about harvesting embryos for stem cells as an alternative to flushing them both in IVF and early abortions. I honestly don't know for sure if the latter has actually been done or is being done anywhere. However, it's definately a possibility, and if we don't get some better mechanisms for generating stem cells, then that will likely become the most common way to get them once the first major stem cell breakthrough comes about.
IVF proceedures are expensive, and not many people do them (cause only those with fertility problems would bother, right?). Any woman can fertilize a single egg without requring any special equipment at all. If demand for stem cells reaches a certain level, the value for those embryos *will* make it quite viable to pay a woman to fertilize one for them the old fashioned way. Think about it. You pay a woman for a month of her time (doesn't need to be fertilized long to be harvested). She gets a few thousand dollars for a couple weeks work. You get a fresh batch of stem cells which you can then use to sell miracle cures to the rich. Trust me. If we don't find alternative ways to generate stem cells, the only way to keep up with demand will be exactly that method. I can't think of a single economic alternative.
Quote:
To further this research there would never be a need to pay women to get pregnant and abort. All that's needed is eggs and sperm to be combined in a lab and frozen, as they do all the time for IVF.
Yeah. But as I mentioned. It costs a hell of a lot more to do that combination in a lab then inside a woman naturally. Where do you think you're getting the eggs in the first place? You've already got to pay a woman for an egg, right? You're already doing a surgical proceedure to get that egg. Why on earth take the egg out of the womans womb, only to put it in a lab and combine it with sperm there, when you can just impregnate the woman in the lab first and take out the fertilized egg instead of an invertile one?
The reason IVF is used is for women who have a problem concieving. But if you're going to pay a woman anyway, why not pay one that *doesn't* have a problem? Just artificially inseminate her. Wait a few days for the egg to fertilize. And then take out the fertilized egg. Failure rate is vastly lower, and it's actually an easier proceedure. The end result in both cases is identical. A fertilized egg generating stem cells (budding embryo). One requires significant lab work, expense, and has a high failure rate (IVF is not nearly as efficient as a normally fertile woman, it's just better then a normally infertile woman). The other is relatively cheap.
I'm serious here. If I put an add out in the paper tomorrow saying I'll pay single women 5 thousand dollars and give them an all expense paid trip to the bahamas (or some other offshore location where I've set up my lab), and all they have to do is spend one day (on their trip) scheduling the fertilization, one day doing the insemination, then one day harvesting the egg, all on an outpatient basis, exactly how many lines around the block do you think I'll have?
If you don't think that the value of stem cells (and the demand for them) will cause that to happen unless we come up with cheaper ways to generate them in the lab, you are really mistaken. IVF is nice, but it will never keep up with the demand if stem cell products go into production anywhere.