« Good bye Dan Rather | Main | Bad Samaritan CD exchange – untitled »
Be a good Samaritan and let people die.
by chris at 04:23 AM on February 20, 2005
Can you say blastocyst? (pronounced: BLAST-o-sist) Good. Next time you hear someone talk about embryonic stem cell research you should correct them and mention that the term "embryonic stem cell" is something of a misnomer. Early stem cells are harvested from blastocysts, not embryos. Why does it matter? It matters because the meaning people attach to something is often directly related to the accuracy of the words used to describe it. When people think of embryos, they think of little partially formed beings with tiny beating hearts and limb buds. They see something of themselves, and that's meaningful. Scientifically speaking a mammalian embryo can have a fairly broad definition but is usually considered to be post-implantation, once the long axis forms, and tissues begin to form and differentiate. A blastocyst, on the other hand, is a soccer-ball like clump of approximately 150 cells. There is very little that is recognizable about it at all, except that it is round.
No one knows the fate of any particular blastocyst. The majority of these tiny cell clumps are lost to nature and pass through the womb without implanting. Somehow I don't envision Bush staying up at night wondering why most of humanity never had a chance to exist. Rather, we don't worry about them just like we don't worry about the countless other cells we lose every day - despite the fact, that like the blastocyst, each one of them may have the potential to become a human being. We all dump our skin cells, hair, stomach linings, blood cells, sperm, eggs, unimplanted blastocysts, etc. into society at every moment of every day with very little thought. We don't worry about the cellular trash of life, even though it has potential.
IVF clinics create blastocysts everyday. Like the guy on the Krispy Kreme donut line using his little straw to pick up the irregular donuts and toss them into the trash, as a consequence of production some blastocysts get thrown away and some are chosen for implantation. However, unlike the majority of Krispy Kreme donuts which hopefully find a mouth somewhere, the majority of blastocysts from IVF clinics will never survive. Yet we accept IVF without Bush's rhetoric of, "Life must not be destroyed for the purpose of saving lives."
A blastocyst can be formed from sperm and egg, or from one of your own somatic cells. By placing the nucleus of one of your skin cells (for example) into an enucleated oocyte, it is possible to re-program your somatic cell so that it re-starts development and begins to form a blastocyst. The process is called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, or SCNT for short.
What's so special about a blastocyst is that within the clump is a special group of cells called stem cells. These cells are pluripotent, meaning that with the right kind of stimulation they can form into any of a number of disparate cell types. They are much more flexible and diverse than adult stem cells. They can be taken from the blastocyst and then cultured continuously in a petri dish like any other cell line, where they can be studied for their differentiation properties.
So then what's the difference between one of your skin cells, versus one of your skin cells having been exposed to some factors in an oocyte?
Both cells have the same information content, however one of them has been re-programmed. Just like changing your mind, you might have been a lawyer all your life and then one day you come home and decide to become a gardner. You're the same person, you just make different choices. Both cells are the same, they have the same genes. However in one of the cells, the genes take on a different on/off pattern, which changes the behavior of the cell. Similar to getting cancer, a certain on/off gene pattern occurs, causing a cell to change it's behavior and grow without paying attention to the cells around it.
A blastocyst, whether formed through IVF or SCNT, assumes a dormant state. It needs certain factors in conjunction with the uterine wall to become activated and continue development. If left in a petri dish, it becomes nothing and stops dividing. Yet this tiny dormant clump of cells holds promise for curing many diseases - much moreso than adult stem cells.
Should it be against the law to re-program one of your own cells? The state in which I live is trying to pass just such a law. Despite the acceptance of the low road of IVF, certain Presidents and Senators want us to take the high road and not to do research that could cure people and alleviate lifetimes of human suffering, because they want to equate a dormant clump of 150 cells that will never be implanted in any uterus, with a human being.
While every sperm is sacred, so is every person suffering from Parkinsons disease. Just as I can see the difference between a sperm and a zygote (fertilized egg), so too can I see the difference between a blastocyst and an embryo, or a blastocyst and a person.
I don't see why it's better, or more moral, to stop research and let people continue to suffer and die from curable diseases and ailments than to allow the study of a few cells that come from the re-programming of one of one's own cells.
If I have to reprogram a cell to help save someone's life, you can call me a Bad Samaritan, but there shouldn't be a law against it.
comments (20)
It's funny because Chris is such a common name, but I know you are the real Chris. The dispassionate reasoning, the covering of all the bases, it's Chris. The Chris.
On a somewhat related matter, I heard some radio yakker toss off a rather startling stat: He claims that EVERY DAY, more embryos or zygotes or babies or whatever are aborted than died on Sept 11 (in the US alone.) First off, I don't buy that. Second, where is the supporting data? There must be a verifiable number out there somewhere.
And if somehow it's true, that's close to 1 million a year. Or 31 million since abortion was legalized. That would be 1/3 of the US population.
by anna at February 20, 2005 8:42 AM
And the boldness to wade into such a weighty topic for a first post, and into the weekend comment abyss to boot! Kudos.
*extricates himself delicately from Chris's asshole*
by anna at February 20, 2005 10:26 AM
anna, if you're talking about spontansoues abortions, here's some info for you. basically, there's a hell of a lot of spontaneous abortion.
1. Approximately 10-15% of all clinically recognized pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.
2. Biochemical pregnancy manifests itself by the presence of ?-HCG in the blood 7-10 days after conception. When both clinical and biochemical pregnancies are considered, more than 50% of conceptions are spontaneous aborted.
Medical references to support these data are found at: http://www.5mcc.com/Assets/SUMMARY/TP0001.html
by not chris at February 20, 2005 11:11 AM
anna, were they talking about spontaneous abortions? basically, there's a hell of a lot of spontaneous abortion.
1. Approximately 10-15% of all clinically recognized pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.
2. Biochemical pregnancy manifests itself by the presence of ?-HCG in the blood 7-10 days after conception. When both clinical and biochemical pregnancies are considered, more than 50% of conceptions are spontaneous aborted.
Medical references to support these data are found at: http://www.5mcc.com/Assets/SUMMARY/TP0001.html
by not chris at February 20, 2005 11:13 AM
(sorry for the double post. wanted to go back and clarify, but apparently posted the first time, too.)
by not chris at February 20, 2005 11:14 AM
Yay, weighty topics! And informative to boot. Methinks this new infusion of new blood will serve us well and offset the slackers of the group (i.e. moi.)
I haven't done much reading into the stem cell debate, chalking most of the controversy up to the "save the chill-drun" right-wingers. Now, however, I know that I was scientifically justified all along, as blastocysts are the source of stem cell research and 1 blastocyst != 1 child.
Soon I will post on the weighty, policy-changing, earth-shattering topic of finding a new apartment on a tight deadline in Los Angeles. Stay tuned for another action-packed episode...
by snaggle at February 20, 2005 1:18 PM
No they were clearly talking about clinically induced abortions. And they also trotted out some pretty sketchy-sounding stats about the frequency of so-called partial birth abortion, which to me is an abomination.
by anna at February 20, 2005 2:52 PM
I'm not a religious fundamentalist, but I'm against abortion, and against IVF for that matter. There is obviously a difference between a blastocyte and an ebryo and a baby, and all the steps in between. But, as we've discussed before, I don't fell comfortable making the decision about at which point something is a person, and which point something is still just a mass of cells. You've got a great deal of knowledge about this, obviously, but all the facts in the world wont shake that feeling I have deep inside me that a baby is a baby is a baby, no matter what science chooses to call it.
And Anna - according to AGI, a very well respected repro health group, there have actually been around 1.3 million abortions each of the last several years (for which there is data). They also so that roughly 1/4 pregnancies (which result in birth or abortion) end with an abortion. I wasn't aware of either of those statistics, but I find them startling and really unsettling.
by mg at February 20, 2005 3:08 PM
hmph... If I could start again... a million miles away...
i'm pro stem cell...
and I don't mind abortion really.
by LOCKHEED at February 21, 2005 3:17 AM
What a touchy subject this is. Food?
by anna at February 21, 2005 7:54 AM
Thanks Anna. Somehow I think only you cold use the words "extricate" and "asshole" in a sentence and have it be a compliment.
MG I'm glad we have a value system which makes this a complex topic with divided opinions. However I want people to get comfortable enough with certain observations that their opinions are based on real informed conviction, and not ignorance.
Think for example how we feel (in general) about the oppressive laws on women in many Muslim societies. We accept the idea that a women can show her face in public, and men can function normally. We accept the idea that photographing a fully clothed woman with her face exposed, and maybe some skin below the knees is not a moral abination or pornography. It's just a photograph of a person.
We accept the idea that sometimes someone dies, their heart stops, and we can actually bring them back to life by jump-starting them like a car by shocking the hell out of them. I've got to believe that was controversial at some time, and would certainly freak out certain cultures. Organ transplants were very controversial, but now are common in the US. However, in many Asian countries, transplants are still considered an abomination, and ironically those places are hot beds for stem cell research - because if you can grow your own liver back you can survive, whereas if a transplant could save your life you're SOL, due not to technology but to local custom.
What I want people to realize is that cells have certain properties, and we needn't have a shit fit about it, or criminalize the study of those properties. A cell can be reprogrammed, and that's it. It's a fact of life, and it's true of every cell. But a reprogrammed cell needn't be a person, anymore than a silver halide impression of a double X homo sapien in a gelatin matrix is a moral abomination. We can easily pass laws to deal effectively with how re-programmed cells are treated, but to pass laws forbidding the process, simply because we're not used to the idea, and justify it by a cloudy moral high ground while people suffer and die of curable diseases - I find that short-sighted and un-neccesary.
by chris at February 21, 2005 1:45 PM
Thanks, Chris, I think. Funny you should mention the Muslim women thing.... Stay tuned.
by anna at February 21, 2005 6:03 PM
Welcome Chris!!
by jean at February 21, 2005 9:09 PM
But, here is the point I'm always trying to make - it is only "morally cloudy" because it is a moral you don't ascribe to. You and I can agree that laws are oppressive on women in many Muslim societies. Yet, there are 1 billion Muslims who'd probably disagree. The only reason you and I are right about this is because we say we are right. There is nothing to say that women should be treated equally, other than an inherent belief that this is so.
You can toss off reams of scientific research about blastoctyes and fetii (a word?), but when it comes down to it, the only thing making your right, and everyone else of moral cloudiness, is that you say so. There may be biological definitions to say that a blastocyte is just a mass of cells, but there is nothing to say that it isn't a life, other than that you think it isn't.
by mg at February 22, 2005 7:18 AM
What is the plural of clitoris? Clitorises or clitori?
by anna at February 22, 2005 7:44 AM
I think abortion as an option for women is a good thing, regardless of what I think of it. Seems millions of women feel that way too... Shame that younger generations look at it as just another 'thing' to fall back on should they fall pregnant though. Perhaps just another cushion to save them from having to take precautions, and having to be responsible.
"Shit! I forgot zee condoms, are you on the pill?"
"Nah... Ah forget it, I'm too horny, just fuck me and if I get preggers I'll have an abortion."
"Oh, alright."
*girl thinking* - Or maybe I'll keep it, who knows. "Hurry up I'm horny."
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at February 22, 2005 10:47 AM
Anna: If you're actually looking at something that needs the plural... Then the word is ZOINK!
You lucky twat! ;)
by Ex Crimson Guard NCo at February 22, 2005 10:49 AM
Thanks Jean!
Well put MG. However, I would say it's not so much a matter of prescribing to it as not getting it. I'm not fond of the position of ascribing to morals that I don't understand - and I am very willing to put in the work of reflection and introspection to understand the moral basis for our laws. However I find it cloudy because I'm asking questions and not getting answers from the opposition. I'd even say yes, of course, a blastocyst is a life. But in this case the devil is in the details. What we know of an SCNT blastocyst is that it goes through enough of the motions of development to produce a few stem cells. However, it will not on it's own develop into an embryo, a fetus, or a baby. Thus, from those who oppose this research I strive to understand the wrongness of it. I know the conservative way is not to ask too many questions, but I really want to understand. An SCNT blastocyst is simply a re-programmed cell. I want to know why it's wrong to reprogram a cell (cells udnergo program changes all the time in nature), and my problem with the Bush stance, is basically that he won't have the conversation. Thus in that case, I'd say the only thing making opponents of ES research right, and scientists wrong, is silence.
by Chris at February 22, 2005 12:09 PM
I think if you are playing god by taking away life (abortion), then why the hell not do it in creating life (cloning).
I haven't developed a belief that really makes me lean one way or the other yet on either of these issues, but if it deemed immoral, and banned from our society, I will never get enought information to make an educated guess.
by dominathan at February 22, 2005 12:27 PM
Over in Russia, for a long time, the preferred method of birth control was abortion. (An average of 3-4 per lifetime.) You'd go to market, buy a potato, pick a Ruble up off the curb and then stop by for an abortion. Anyone who's been involved in one must know that it wasn't that simple.
by anna at February 22, 2005 5:57 PM