We all know that live animal testing is responsible for killing millions of animals every year.  Is there really a point?  What are some reasons that stem cells should or should not be used?  \nIt is important to know that stem cells can be harvested from a few different places; adults, embryos, and umbilical cords or placentas, and from animals.  It is true that embryos will die if used for stem cells, however, the embryos that would be used are those that are not going to be implanted anyway.  So what is more ethical, killing an embryo because you don't want it, or killing an embryo to help millions of people that need it?\nStem cell research is beneficial and is also more effective. Stem cells are mor efficient in testing and instead of using hundreds of animals to test one thing, a few stem cells could be used instead.  \nWhat do you guys think?
135645
You answered your own question about stem cell research. I encourage you to learn more. \n\nRegarding replacing animal testing, you are comparing 2 completely different things. A stem cell is a cell. It has the functionality of a cell. It is unique because it can be treated with a variety of biochemical processes to cause it to differentiate, but it will never function as a whole living system. \n\nWhen a vaccine is studied, for example, the creators must know how the vaccine interacts with every system of the body. Sure, you can demonstrate in a petri dish that the vaccine binds flu virus. Great. That's the FIRST step! But how do you know it won't bind the interior surface of the lung in a living body? how do you klnow how it is working? How do you know what systems in the body improve its function? How do you know that 3 days after vaccination there can be an allergic reaction in people with impaired immune systems becasue the incidence of CD4 cells in the airways can cause asthma (this is a hypothetical case, BTW, used to illustrate the complexity of the issue)? The only way to know is to test it in a living body. Period. \n\nHere is a very good web site debunking the popular myths surrounding animal research: \n\nhttp://www.huntingdon.com/index.php?currentNumber=4.9&currentIsExpanded=0\n\nBy the way- two facts most people do not know:\n1) Animal research is much more strictly regulated than human\n2) At all reputable research facilities, the use of every animal used in testing must be justified to government regulatory agencies, and to a representative of public interest\n\nThe use of animals is governed by groups of people dedicated to making critical, and tough, ethical decisions, weighing risk vs benefit, and carefully assessing every proposed study. The benefit to human and animal health and well-being  is alwasy considered very carefully in each decision.\n\nI encourage to learn more about this topic, and continue to ask thoughtful questions.
6379
stem cell research may be a potential fountain of youth but more work needs to be done on it. A guy wrote a book on living forever that was recently published but his sample was just himself and his assistant, not a statistically significant sample size nor could anyone draw any firm conclusions. He altered his existence so much that most could not live as he did to make it work, i.e. organic foods, no meat, no alcohol, no drugs, lots of exercise...etc...\n\nI do not know the name of the book, but I remember reading the review of it in the Wall Street Journal, Perhaps a web search of WSJ and fountain of youth might bring you what you want.
415304
What kind of stem cell research? Embryonic stem cells come from unborn babies, which means you have to kill the most innocent and most defenseless of human life to get the cells. This is what the liberals want to do to increase the number of abortioins in the US and the world. There is no evidence that this type of cell research is going to produce anything of value. If it had any promise, investors would be lining up to put money into it. But they aren't, so the pro-aborts want government (that means "your money") to fund the research.\n\nOn the other hand, adult stem cell research has yielded incredible results. But you can't kill an adult, so the libs aren't interested in this type of research...
45043
I would fund stem cell research. When we get the cure to all these disceases, if someone doesn't approve of the research, then they don't have to use them.
637139
I am 100% against it. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with all the technology that we have today there is another way than by harvesting embroyos. Whether  America would like to admit that an embryo is a living being or not, the fact still remains that it is. I am confident that God will supply us the knowledge and ability to reproduce stem cells another way.\n\n\nhttp://www.stemcellresearch.org/\n\n\nhttp://www.biblebelievers.com/AllThis.html
333674
there is nothing wrong with "stem cell research", but all idiots in the media group adult stem cells, good and have proven to be effective for cures and preventative. and embrionic stem cells, bad. killing a embrio that could, and many have, been used to give people children. and all embrionic stem cells research has not had even one sucess in a single cure or preventiative medicene.
122283
I think that you need a lot of answers to this. I am also against the use of animals in trials. I aggree with the previous answerer that it is sad and I will add that it is also scarring the purpose they are using them for.\n\nKaterina
377846
I had been watching the election updates all night. I live near St. Louis. \n\nI'm not entirely sure about my stance on embryonic stem cell research. However, it's helpful in other ways.\n\nThe scientists and doctors who have been researching it have been under threat for the past several years from bills that people have been trying to pass in Jefferson County and elsewhere. The governor of Illinois was trying to take advantage of that by trying to persuade some of Missouri's best doctors and other researchers to come work in Illinois where stem cell research isn't under threat. \n\nBy the stem cell initiative passing, it has taken a weight off of the shoulders of some of Missouri's best doctors and those who were considering a doctoral career in Missouri. Now, our best doctors can stay in Missouri and continue doing their research and attempts by people of other states to exploit Missouri's flaws to get them to leave Missouri and work in their states will be a lot less tempting.\n\nTherefore, the stem cell initiative's passing has helped ensure that Missouri can continue to have some of the top health care professionals and reasearchers in the country and the people of Missouri will continue to receive top quality health care from highly trained professionals.
392219
That is true. For this is reason is why the Catholic Church is agaisnt IVF, they encouraged adoption. You're not gonna receive an honest answer because most people while they abhor abortion they think IVF is wonderful (forgetting that many embryos are destroyed in the process after the woman is pregnant).  Yet, many pro-lifers used IVF when they can't conceive instead of adopting. This shows the hypocrisy of the people at the highest level.
282812
You should use your own opinion. My personal opinion on the matter though is that cloning does not necessarily mean actually producing another one of yourself. Therapeutic cloning is the act of making a cloned embryo and extracting its stem cells before they even differentiate. The use of these stem cells in research is very valuable and has the potential to save millions of lives around the world (for reasons I opt not to get into).\n\nThus, I believe therapeutic cloning should be legal. The reproductive cloning of humans however, should remain illegal. Basically, the creation of formed embryos should be allowed, but it should be illegal to implant them so that can develop into human beings.\n\nThat's my personal point of view though. This is a highly controversial subject and you really need to research it and form an opinion of your own.
163594
For embyronic stem cell:\nit will provide many cures for possibly many diseases and conditions such as diabetes and paralysis, it has proven to be effective so far and can better the lives of many, it is the cutting edge of modern medicine\n\nAgainst:\nThere are other methods of stem cell research using adult stem cells that won't use embryos at all, many believe that killing the embryos just for their stem cells is not moral, the eventual result of stem cell research could be overcrowding due to increased life span for many and/or cloning which is an issue that is also very controversial
420503
I'm sorry, but some of the answers on here are utterly wrong in terms of science - there is a very big difference between stem cells from embryos, and stem cells from places like bone marrow.\n\nTHERE ARE INFACT TWO TYPES OF STEM CELL undergoing medical research: Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) and Adult Stem Cells (ASCs). \n\nASCs are taken from a human adult (eg from bone marrow), and usually either transplanted to another part of the body, or artificially encouraged to grow to greater numbers. ESCs are taken from human embryos which have been created artificially. Under the right conditions, these cells can then be grown in a lab, and if given the appropriate chemical signals, can be manipulated to become virtually any type of cell imaginable. In either case the aim is to replace tissues lost through disease.\n\nThose opposed to the use of ESCs strongly advocate the use of ASCs. However, many scientists believe that ASCs are ultimately less useful medically, as they cannot replace all types of cells. Blood stem cells can only become blood cells. They exist in very small amounts and are therefore hard to find, and in extremely limited supply if wanted for transplantation on a large scale. They are also difficult to grow in culture. By contrast, ESCs are easy to isolate, grow and manipulate, and have a greater variety of uses. Thus, they are favoured by scientists as a medical tool. \n\nAs ASCs come directly from the adult patient, there is essentially no controversy, as there are no life-issues at stake. It is the use of ESCs which is the cause of the debate, as it involves artificially creating a human embryo, harvesting the cells and then destroying the embryo. The moral objections to this revolve around a fundamental question - when does a group of cells constitute a human life? Put simply, are we playing God, and it is morally acceptable for us to do so? There has been no definitive conclusion, and the argument continues.\n\nThe variety of diseases which can potentially be treated with ESCs is huge, ranging from degenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, and even cancer. If successful, it could be the greatest reliever of human suffering since the introduction of antibiotics. To give some examples: A univeristy research team in America is close to creating a CURE to diabetes. Stem cells can be encouraged to produce insulin. These can then be transplanted into the patient, and they will never have to inject themselves with insulin again!! Another research team, in the UK, has managed to get stem cells to grow into liver tissue. This tissue can be used to test new drugs, so removing some of the need for animal testing - something I think most people would like to see! In the future, we will be able to grow whole organs for people!!\n\nI would like to point out that aborted babies are NOT used for stem cell research. The embryos are created in the lab, and growth is stopped when it reaches 8 cells. This way, all the cells are still stem cells, and so useful. Babies which have been aborted are far too large and devoloped to be useful in this way.\n\nHowever, the moral arguments surrounding their use do not look set to be resolved any time soon. Regardless, the immense potential medical benefits cannot be ignored. It is my view that the research should be allowed to continue, as it could help people in so many ways. Those who are opposed do not have to make use of the treatments once they become available, like Jehova's Wittnesses, who refuse blood transfusions because it against their beliefs. But I belive in giving people the choice.
16302
Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that can, under the right conditions, turn into any other kind of cell.  They are of particular interest to scientists in that they may provide a means to replace damaged cells that the body cannot naturally replaced (in the spinal chord, for example).  Stem cells are often talked about (not inacurately) in the context of curing numerous degenerative neurological conditions (Parkinsons, Altzeimers, ALS, etc.) as well as other conditions that can be traced to the malfunction of a particular type of cell (they could be used, for example, to replace insuline-sectreteing cells in type I diabetes).\n\nAlthough I have not heard of a product like the one you mentioned, I would be inclined to say it does absolutely nothing.  Stem cells are only useful if they can be made to differentiate and become a specific type the specific type of cell that is needed, where that type of cell is needed.  Flooding the body with stem cells will not make that happen.  My best guess is that it is an attempt to profit off the wide-spread association of the term "stem cell" with curing uncurable diseases and, by extention, with improved health in general.
116580
I think a great deal more needs to be done in animal cloning before humans get involved. Besides the ethical issues, there are real physiological difficulties that seem to erupt in cloned organisms. It seems that having two sets of genetic material really is important.
58070
Neither, I'm in the middle on this issue.  It's a shame most people don't know there's a middle ground.\n\nYou said something original.\n\nOK, why?: To say a single cell should be granted the rights of a human person is probably one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.  On the other hand, to say it's OK to kill a 7 month old fetus that is little different from a new-born is just as absurd.\n\nMiddle ground can be achieved when we realize what it means to be human... to think (at least to the point that you might care if you were aborted or not). That is why I believe we should limit abortion to 22 weeks - the time of the development of the neo-cortex.
447139
For years a debate has ensued over the practice of animal research and experimentation. The scientific community and animal rights activists have disagreed as to whether the benefits of animal research and experimentation are worth the pain and suffering that these experiments often cause to the animal subjects. Scientific advances have greatly reduced the number and severity of animal experiments that take place\n\nThere are  two main categories of animal experimentation and research, medical and cosmetic. \n\nMedical testing involves testing new drugs for their levels of toxicity and trying out new medical procedures. Animals are used to represent humans and human reactions in these tests in order to analyze the potential impacts of the drugs or procedures on humans\n\nCosmetic testing is use of  animals to test the risks involved with the use of certain cosmetics and household products. This type of experimentation predicts the irritation levels of these products and any dangers they may pose to humans\n\nWITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:\n*60 MILLION PEOPLE MAY RISK DEATH FROM HEART ATTACK, STROKE, OR KIDNEY FAILURE FROM LACK OF MEDICATION TO CONTROL THEIR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE.\n*7,5000 NEWBORNS WHO CONTRACT JAUNDICE EACH YEAR WOULD DEVELOP CEREBRAL PALSY, NOW PREVENTABLE THROUGH PHOTO THERAPY. \n*POLIO WOULD KILL OR CRIPPLE THOUSANDS OF UNVACCINATED CHILDREN AND ADULTS THIS YEAR.\n*MILLIONS OF DOGS, CATS, AND OTHER PEYS AND FARM ANIMALS WOULD DIE FROM ANTHRAX, DISTEMPER, CANINE PARVOVIRUS, FELINE LEUKEMIA, RABIES AND MORE THAN 200 OTHER DISEASES NOW PREVENTABLE THANKS TO ANIMAL RESEACH.
375913
It's good that they're finally coming out into the open about human-cow hybrids, but they've been doing that for years. Look at Margaret Thatcher for example.\n\nBut seriously, an embryo is not a human or a cow, and I doubt they would allow this to grow past a small number of cells. They are created in fertility clinics and discarded all the time. I don't have a problem with this.