VinnieK Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Well go on then VinnieK - stop saying how poor I am at dealing with this subject and start giving us some science and some ethics then. Hey, if you're going to be the forum's very own ambassador of science, you're going to get a bit of flak now and again. In any case, didn't I just do that in the main paragraph of my previous post? I've stated what I, rightly or wrongly, feel are the main merits of this research (which I'm more than happy to be corrected on). So with regards to that issue I don't quite see how you can claim I haven't made at least an outline of my opinion clear. I'd be very interested to find out if these sperm are fully functioning and, if not, what it is about development in the testes that is the difference between these and naturally produced sperm and whether it's possible for technology to overcome this. Sadly we're going to have to wait a fair bit for those results, so in a sense this story doesn't quite go as far as it sounds like it should. As for ethics, well, I'm in two minds about it all. In terms of scientific discovery, this is undoubtably very nifty. Having said that, I'm not yet convinced that, in terms of social worth, stem cell research is quite deserving of the levels of excitement it generates. With regards to medical knowledge it's undoubtably a boon to be investigating such matters, but I can't help but think that the main benefit of techniques developed in the lab are, in the short term at least, to extend lifespans and improve fertility in Western and developed economies at a time when the world has plenty of bigger problems that could probably benefit more from the funds currently being injected into such labs (which a cynic might suggest is primarily politically motivated, the intention being to yield profitable results and raise Britain's profile in a currently fashionable discipline). For the science: Woo! For society: Meh. I know that doesn't really address the ongoing argument about the morality of using and destroying human embryos in scientific research, but then that argument's surely pretty much a closed book. It's been at least a decade since the issue of stem cell research entered the public conscious, with both sides now pretty much entrenched in their opinions. How many times can the same arguments be put forward, the same articles of faith recited, before it becomes a routine exercise in grandstanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 where's the love for the actual science here? VinnieK this seems to be the love of science with 95% of the theology cut away. I've known for quite a while that given the chemistry existing in every cell in our body the simple break down between germ line and somatic cells was a lot blurrier than most theologians wish it to be. And now here's the proof - sperm cells created from stem cells. I see [this] as confirming the amazing utility of life - every cell in our body harbours coiled in its nucleus the code for life and in the right circumstances it will out. An exciting time - and one Britain is at the forefront of. I will encourage my kids to study bio-chemistry. How about you? Sebrof is there saying I'm letting my exitement get in the way of my rationality, though I acknowledge the need for a debate [just not a bronze age one], while you are getting at me for ignoring the science and religion bashing! Can't win! You can win if you stop the gratuitous religion-bashing and concentrate on the issues. And the biggest issue is what controls there will be on the ability to create life artifically - which is where we are heading. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I know that doesn't really address the ongoing argument about the morality of using and destroying human embryos in scientific research, but then that argument's surely pretty much a closed book. It's been at least a decade since the issue of stem cell research entered the public conscious, with both sides now pretty much entrenched in their opinions. How many times can the same arguments be put forward, the same articles of faith recited, before it becomes a routine exercise in grandstanding? Indeed. But the issue is of huge importance, and a way must be found to move the debate on. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 My point is that the chemistry of life is ubiquitous. If someone has an accident, looses his knackers and technology has advanced to the stage where by taking stem cells from his bone marrow or where ever and manipulating it to grow into sperm then I am fine with that. I do not regard that as creating life artificially. In the calibur of moral debate, it is little more than an advance on a test-tube baby. If that technology was a reality the most important issues to me would be around consent - its complex now (here's a story showing the problems the current technology has) - it will be even more complex in the future, but if the legislation effectively limited it to this I see few moral issues. As I said above - people are spinning out science fiction horror stories which are of very little relevence and trying to use that as a reason to ban primary research with real benefits. (I'll agree with Vinniek that curing Malaria is a far better use of funds, but that isn't particularly relevent to the debate about whether this type of research is right or wrong in principle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I do not doubt the ability of science to advance. What I do doubt is the ability to use the end product wisely. Granted most if not all technology has a good and bad potential, regardless of the original conception, but the ethics and wisdom are to my mind sometimes subsumed by other considerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 As I said above - people are spinning out science fiction horror stories which are of very little relevence and trying to use that as a reason to ban primary research with real benefits. This is true, though I think it's also important to guard against the other extreme that views stem cell research as a magic bullet that will cure all known ills and unlock the mysteries of creation. This is a new science, and we don't really have any appreciation of what limitations may hamper the aspirations we have for it. This isn't just a curmudgeonly attempt to dismiss an emerging field, by the way: the tendency towards overstating the benefits of such research often acts against its best interests. Take the examples set by nanotechnology and genetic modification a decade ago or so. Scientists talked up its immediate potential in an attempt to secure funding, the media saw it as an opportunity to increase their readership with accounts of another miraculous silver bullet and did the same, and government, always on the look out for a national prestige project to associate itself with, followed suit. Of course, all this did was scare people, who, in the nuclear age recognise the fact that power is often accompanied by the potential for destruction and almighty cock ups and are naturally weary of boffins promising utopia delivered from the barrel of a test tube. In the end two things happened: 1. a popular back lash with the media who, recognising scare stories as an even bigger cash cow, encouraged it still further; 2. Scientists learned how to play the funding system and started throwing buzzwords into their funding applications and associating themselves with fashionable areas of research, even if their actual research was at best only vaguely related to it. In a way, these backlashes against science are self perpetuating. It's near impossible to completely reassure people that their concerns about a bleeding edge bit of science are ill founded without sending them through seven or eight years of higher education, so those in favour of the research have no option but to dismiss such fears in a cursory fashion and further hype the benefits. So, already afraid, the public now feels, and not totally unreasonably, that this scary new technology is being run by people who to them seem to ignore and/or pooh pooh their ethical concerns. It's not really a recipe for success is it? You may as well make creepy eyes and a tendency to cackle fiendishly a compulsory element of doctoral assessments and make newly qualified scientists change their names to things like Dr Nemesis and Professor Genocide. Pretty much the same thing's happening with stem cells, and I predict it will probably end up the same way, namely having to spend a bit of time in the wilderness until people forget about it/are busy being terrified by something else before making a return in a more modest (and realistic) form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 [...] change their names to things like Dr Nemesis and Professor Genocide. [...] Catchy. I might do that myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whimsy Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Why do they need to make any more sperm anyway? There's plenty about. I have millions to spare every day, if they want some. There is a limit to how many jars my cupboards will hold you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosferatu Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I just see it as incredible that there are scientists in Newcastle! Cheeky fucker .We've got pretty good history when it comes to invention up there William Armstrong , Joe Swan , George & Robert Stephenson etc so ner ! I'd imagine the uses for artificial sperm could be numerous not least to overworked chefs who don't have enough time to "season" Michael Winner's or AA Gill's soup should they drop in for an unexpected visit . Hopefully next on the agenda is various clones of Joe Harvey , Jackie Milburn and Alan Shearer it would be about the only way that NUFC can get out of the current mess they're in . On a more serious note it is an amazing achievement and will surely lead to more complex creations/discoveries . Hopefully at some point it may be possible create a more stable new organ for use in transplant cases where if you have created a kidney using stem cells from the intended recipient then there shouldn't be too much of a problem of the body rejecting it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Why do they need to make any more sperm anyway? There's plenty about. It's a wank idea. I suspect there are already 'man-made' people walking about conceived in the lab by some mad scientist. I've seen at least a few dozen in Tesco's, some operating the tills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Why do they need to make any more sperm anyway? There's plenty about. It's a wank idea. I suspect there are already 'man-made' people walking about conceived in the lab by some mad scientist. I've seen at least a few dozen in Tesco's, some operating the tills. was gonna say, why make them when I've got 100 million of the little buggers weighing me down at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 100 million? Must have taken ages to count them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 was gonna say, why make them when I've got 100 million of the little buggers weighing me down at the moment You should really be using condoms you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 was gonna say, why make them when I've got 100 million of the little buggers weighing me down at the moment You should really be using condoms you know. if I was a girl, that would be very funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 You should really be using condoms you know. Wise words. I'm guessing that you've now given up using the spit technique then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.