Atheist Ireland Forum

Did anyone see a documentary on this on RTE? I heard mention there was meant to have been one, I think on sunday, but I only heard today. What was it like, what bias did they have etc.

I believe there is a supreme court decision in the waiting too on this? When is it due to be announced? Does anyone know how vocal the church is being in opposition?

Man I am out of touch.

Yea, I did feel people were putting too much stock in the adult stem cells which is a little behind.

And what of the high court decision. Did you catch anything about that? I assume if the decision goes FOR stem cell research that the Catholic church will take a court case trying to over turn it?

In which case we may be very close to having a good agenda for the new atheist association, to stand up to the church if they try to interfere with the final decision of the courts.

Pluripotent Stem Cells Shown To Generate New Retinal Cells Necessary For Vision, Study Finds

Science Daily

Pluripotent stem cells — those, like embryonic stem cells, that give rise to almost every type of cell in the body — can be converted into the different classes of retinal cells necessary for vision, according to a new study from researchers at SUNY Upstate Medical University.

This research points to exciting new possibilities for preventing or reversing the disabling vision loss caused by age-related macular degeneration, diabetes retinopathy, retinitis pigmentosa, glaucoma, and other diseases that damage the retina, the layer of light-sensitive nerve cells that line the back of the eye. The research was presented at Neuroscience 2008, the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in Washington, D.C.

“Vision is lost in these diseases because one or more of the seven retinal cell types die,” said the study’s lead author, Michael Ezra Zuber, Ph.D., assistant professor of ophthalmology and adjunct assistant professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at SUNY Upstate Medical University. “Current treatments can slow these diseases’ progression, but they can’t replace lost retinal cells. Pluripotent cells offer a promising starting point from which to generate new retinal cells.”

Zuber and his colleagues knew that cultured pluripotent cells could be induced to express some retinal cell genes, but they didn’t know if all retinal cell classes could be generated or if the cells would have the ability to form a functioning retina. To test that hypothesis, the scientists turned to pluripotent Xenopus laevis (frog) cells.

Under normal conditions, pluripotent frog cells form only skin tissue. The scientists were able, however, to convert the pluripotent cells to retinal cells by forcing them to express the eye field transcription factor (or EFTF) genes. The reprogrammed cells formed all seven classes of retinal cells normally found in the eyes, including the retinal ganglion cells, which have axons (optic nerves) that extend to the brain.

Furthermore, these new cells eventually formed into functioning eyes. When tested, tadpoles used their induced eyes to detect light and to engage in a vision-based behavior. The scientists also found a population of self-renewing cells in the periphery of the induced retinas, suggesting that EFTF-induced cells also formed adult retinal stem cells.
“The goal of regenerative medicine is to replace dead or dying cells,” said Zuber. “The retina, like all body organs, contains multiple, distinct cell types. Therefore, successful recovery from blindness due to injury or disease will require the functional replacement of multiple retinal cell types. Our results demonstrate that pluripotent cells can be purposely altered to generate all the functional retinal cell classes necessary for vision.”

The research was supported by Research to Prevent Blindness, the E. Matilda Ziegler Foundation for the Blind, The Lions Club of Central New York, and the U.S. National Eye Institute.

In which case we may be very close to having a good agenda for the new atheist association, to stand up to the church if they try to interfere with the final decision of the courts.

Unlike organised religion, where the moral and ethical standards of the church are imposed on its flock, the members of Atheist Ireland are likely to have quite varying views on ethical matters like stem cell research.

To stand up to the church on church-state separation issues is one thing, to try and garner the backing of the members on divisive or controversial issues could be tricky, however.

We can still be united in being against the church for giving biblical or fantasy reasons for being against it.

I assume people on here who are against stem cells are using, and are open to, real world reasons on the subject. They do not need the church invoking gods will to help them out on it.

Of course.

Here's the problem. It is quite easy to reel off a list of reasons why stem cell research is beneficial. But then we get to the crux of the issue; the use of embryos. And taking the argument a step further we have that old chestnut regarding the viability of 'human life'. I think it was you who wrote a very convincing essay regarding the limits on abortion and when the first signs of consciousness are detected in an embryo. The church doesn't need to use the 'god's will' argument when they can use the 'viability' argument, undefinable enough to muddy the waters.

The church aren't stupid; they're been playing the legal systems for centuries, and they have 'scientists' on their side well able to put up seemingly convincing arguments against using embryos in stem cell research without the need to bring god directly into the debate. We all know of course the underlying reasons are dogma-related, but they won't be presented in that guise.

And throw in a few slippery-slope 'what next cloning for spare parts' fallacies into the mix and it becomes very clouded indeed.

However with stem cells we aren’t even at the embryo stage. We are talking 4 or 5 days after conception. We have the blastocyst at this point, not an embryo per se (if you want to be pedantic about it). Viability doesn’t come anywhere _near_ the issue. The only anti stem cell argument there is therefore is one of souls being present from the moment of conception.

As far as I can see rights are allocated and removed based on what people ARE, not what they MIGHT BE. So I cannot abide people arguing potential in this one case. People who do it realise they have lost the argument so they want to shift the goal posts to try and attain a foothold they really can’t have.