Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nilocy]

Well, its the base DNA thats combined in the womb, with half from your dad and half from your mum, that determines most stuff genetically with you. I was meaning it's fairly easy to change genes in say a sperm and an egg cell of a cow to make it develop extra limbs. In comparison it's super hard to change the gene's already present in a fully functional being. such as trying to get an new born cow to grow extra limbs.

[LegoLord]

Well, its the base DNA thats combined in the womb, with half from your dad and half from your mum, that determines most stuff genetically with you. I was meaning it's fairly easy to change genes in say a sperm and an egg cell of a cow to make it develop extra limbs. In comparison it's super hard to change the gene's already present in a fully functional being. such as trying to get an new born cow to grow extra limbs.

This point is the major reason for me disliking the idea of making custom bodies through the use of genetics; a child may grow to dislike their unusual feature, for some reason or another (I'll bet that at the start, it wouldn't be a popular thing).  For many things, there'd really be no choice (on the affected individual's part) on what features they recieve.

[sonerohi]

Which is why we need time travel.

[smokingwreckage]

Just to chip in here: everyone has stem cells. You have them in your bone marrow, the roots of your baby teeth, and I believe in your brain and spinal cord.

They're not the same as embryonic stem cells, but that's probably an advantage.

If you try to follow developments in the field just from the newsreels you'll be utterly frustrated, journalists don't know or understand the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells.

[smokingwreckage]

I'm an anomaly in that I don't like the idea of killing off embryos but have no problem with genetic engineering so long as it doesn't harm the recipient of the genes. So, if people care to make their children taller, stronger, handsomer, or more tolerant of sugar (for example) I really don't see a problem with that. If however the technique involved a 50% mortality for treated embryos for the addition of a nonessential trait, then I'd be against it.

[LegoLord]

Adult stem cells are nowhere near as versatile as embryonic stem cells.  That's one of the major issues - embryonic is better, but much harder to get.  You see, adult stem cells are utterly useless in some cases; for example, I believe that nerves such as those in the spinal cord can't be reproduced with adult stem cells (though if I'm wrong about that particular type of cell, I'm absolutely positive there are some cells that can't).

[bjlong]

^^^IIRC, that's currently thought to be false--we've gotten adult stem cells to differentiate into more types of cells, and they have a lower rejection ratio. But then, I'm not a biologist.

[Leafsnail]

They're still not very good compared to the embryonic stem cells, since they've already partly specialised.  There was an idea of taking some stem cells from the umbilical cord of a baby as its being born, growing those stem cells and then using those stem cells on the child if it needs a transplant at some point, but that's currently not possible.

I suppose it comes down to your view on embryonic life, and various other things.  Generally, few embryos are actually created for the purpose of stem cells - most are from IVF treatments, which require making multiple embryos.  I personally think that it makes sense to use to remaining embryos for stem cell research, although others may disagree.