Does life begin at fertilisation? Does the hollow ball of 100 cells called a “blastocyst” – formed five days after fertilisation – have human rights? And is it unethical for scientists to extract stem cells from a blastocyst, destroying it in the process? Or would it be morally wrong to abandon millions of people to their suffering when such a procedure represents a likely cure for more than 70 major diseases?
Stem cell research is an extremely promising field of study that could, potentially, result in cures or new treatments for a range of diseases including Parkinson’s, diabetes, leukaemia and heart disease. Embryonic stem cells are usually taken from four to five day old embryos (blastocysts) that were produced during IVF fertility treatment. It is worth pointing out that these embryos had been rejected for implantation and would anyway be destroyed if not used in research.
Not all stem cell research involves embryos. Adult stem cells can also be extracted, for example from bone marrow or blood, but unlike embryonic stem cells they are more restricted in what cell types they can grow into. There are advances being made into something called “Induced pluripotent stem cells” (also known as iPS cells or iPSCs), which are adult cells that are genetically “reprogrammed” to behave like embryonic stem cells. However, this technology is still very new and is not yet a perfect replacement for embryonic stem cells.
Should stem cell research involving human embryos be banned? Is a human embryo equivalent to a human child? Does life begin at fertilisation? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
118 comments Post a commentcomment
No
No
No
No
Yes, i agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
.
You seem obsessed with banning things,Here’s a question you haven’t covered yet.
Should the unelected EU president Juncker face criminal chargers for his role in billions of Euro’s being stolen from the tax payers of Europe or should the reporter be imprisoned for exposing the truth ?
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/court-finds-culprit-luxleaks-scandal-journalist-who-broke-story-314059
@Ivan Burrows
WELL SAID!
Very disturbing link BTW.
No
No
Of course! Life begin before fertilisation.
Yes life “begin” not life begins!!!
No.
Nope.
Absolutely not
Banning should be banned
No.
Science should go forward.if we would banned stuff,still the world would be the center of universe :D
No!
Is a human semen equivalent to a human embryo? There is no human semen nor human embryo to be exact. Currently in our case within my understanding; semen is ‘of man’ i.e. produced by the clockwork of our genitals. Semen is not human nor resembles any humanoid traits exactly as a whole. It simply carries data which is used in the assembly of a ‘human’ entity. Semen gets destroyed in the process of reproduction with the exclusion of the data it carries. Does the semen need ‘rights’?
I consider there to be only one ‘right’ and that is the recognition of mutual understanding. Until mutual understanding is present, no action of the argued kind should be performed by nor onto related participatory. Those who acknowledge mutual consent may proceed, but those who won’t shall be left outside of the process of actions up to the point they agree to join in. Keep it simple.
Is a human semen equivalent to a human embryo? There is no human semen nor human embryo to be exact. Currently in our case within my understanding; semen is ‘of man’ i.e. produced by the clockwork of our genitals. Semen is not human nor resembles any humanoid traits exactly as a whole. It simply carries data which is used in the assembly of a ‘human’ entity. Semen gets destroyed in the process of reproduction with the exclusion of the data it carries. Does the semen need ‘rights’?
I consider there to be only one ‘right’ and that is the recognition of mutual understanding. Until mutual understanding is present, no action of the argued kind should be performed by nor onto related participatory. Those who acknowledge mutual consent may proceed, but those who won’t shall be left outside of the process of actions up to the point they agree to join in. Keep it simple.
In other words the question is not about morals or human rights. It is about understanding. Rights come into question when we, the people as individuals, have our consent to have our ways without the intervention of the rest. Whenever there are willing presented, let them proceed as long as there are participants on both sides of the clerical desk, as figuratively said.
@Tony Kunnari
Hmmm, interesting.
What about recognition of people [the vast uber-majority for very technical matters] who are not au fait with often difficult topics?
Should such ignorance [due to inability or lack of training or both] be ignored perpetually?
Do academics/scientists sometimes make mistakes?:
Phlogiston
Reinhart-Rogoff
Big Bang Theory
@Tarquin Farquhar: I am not fully certain I understood your question or why it surfaced in your mind to begin with. Is something not clear and simple enough to be understood by you in the comment I shared here?
What about Junker’s passing of 19 FRANKENSTEIN foods last week, without even taking into consideration the Parliament, and effectively vetoing member states’ power to bar these gm (roundup) sterile killers from taking over? Can you talk about that please?
http://frontediliberazionedaibanchieri.it/2015/04/colpaccio-di-juncker-fine-della-sovranita-alimentare-ogm-per-tutti.html
In other words the question is not about morals or human rights. It is about understanding. Rights come into question when we, the people as individuals, have our consent to have our ways without the intervention of the rest. Whenever there are willing presented, let them proceed as long as there are participants on both sides of the clerical desk, as figuratively said.
It’s pretty obvious that anyone who objects to the research will also object to the alternative statement “embryos had been rejected for implantation and would anyway be destroyed”
So the question should really be about whether IVF fertility treatment should be banned because this clearly creating embryos who are murdered just for being “surplus to requirements”
No
NO!
YES!
Why do You even ask a question when You force Your answer Yourself. It is unethical when You try to “smuggle” Your position arbitrary claiming moral high-ground.
@Aleksandros Ho Megas
WELL SAID!
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY MODERATORS FOR BREACHING OUR CODE OF CONDUCT. REPLIES MAY ALSO BE REMOVED.
No.
NO
Church is against but on the other side they do this : “On va tuer les demons” ? “We will kill the demons.” 50,000 Children Accused of Sorcery. INSIDE A SMALL CONCRETE CHURCH, lit by a few tungsten bulbs hanging from exposed wires, hundreds of people stood packed together in stifling heat, repeating the words their pastor bellowed into a microphone. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/20/we-will-kill-the-demons/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8530000/8530686.stm
A human should be an entity able to have self consciousness.
I understand that scientifically is difficult to state whether something has or not a self consciousness, but surely a safe boundary can be defined.
Surely a set of undifferentiated cells, having no brain cannot have a self consciousness. An embryo as such should be of property of the couple which conceived it. And this couple can then do whatever they want with this embryo, also donating it to science.
EU must be banned
#PORTUGAL has New Legislation allowing it to export #dogs to Korea for food – they will be skinned alive and left to die in a mountian of corpes – YOU ARE EUROPE, STOP IT !!! https://www.facebook.com/AlgarveResident/posts/10153212804755569
@Sile Dufy
Shame on Portugal. AGAIN!
Just ban everything, EU. Ban yourself too. Ban air and water. ban ban ban
No, this research should be allowed!
WHY?
It is still debated whether embryos are to be considered “alive” or not, and science doesn’t really answer this question. Yes, we can say that life begins at fertilization, when two cells become one; it makes sense. However, I don’t think that calling it “life” really makes it ALIVE. In cases like these I think we just have to look at what we have in front of us and decide: are we willing to treat a cell like a human being and, by doing so, prevent doctors and researchers from working on it and possibly find new treatments for genetic diseases? If those embryos don’t get “used” for IVF, it is clear that they won’t have the chance to develop into human beings anyway. What’s the point in leaving them there forever (I might have read somewhere that they can’t be destroyed or thrown away)? I respect everybody’s opinion on moral issues like these ones, but sometimes you just need think practical.
No.
Yes, of course!
Yes, every life is sacred and cannot be tampered with.
Tell that to Jimmy Savile victims :)
not
NO!
MATA-HARI SAGUARI TIMAY
No. If blastocysts are people then killing bacteria is animal cruelty. There are so many of them used in in vitro fertilization that end up thrown away, why can’t we use them for research that will help and save the lives of actual living people? Adult stem cells don’t have the same capabilities of ESCs.
Nope
Tricky question….when my father was diagnosed with PSP and there is no cure….he wished for his brain to be donated for research….unfortunately died before his consent had been given….the only other way to find cure is through stem cell research
This question is a tricky, as, they are not being explicit about which area of stem cell embryo reseach they are alluding to.
Stem cell reseach can be and is the magical answer to future cure and treatment of applling ilness, paralysis and amputation.
However, playing ticks with human fertilisation is quite another matter. That, in and of itself, is the new root of modern slavery. Producing embyos, called IVF donation, and making them into ‘test tube babies’ to be sold to wealthy barren individuals to enable them to buy a womans womb, for peanuts, to deliver the offspring is another matter entirely. That should be illegal and those doing it and supplying it must be jailed for a very long time. They are todays equivalent of slave trade shippers.
No, just used with reason
We should ask whether producing extra embryos as “byproducts” of IVF is ethical or not. Furthermore, we should focus on the question when the fertilized cells “become” a human being: So, when is the embryo a creature that has neurons and can feel pain?
Having answered this question there should be an ethically acceptable way to proceed with the research. Research is this area is abolutely necessary for the future generations.
We see – there is no god. People make themself to god, and create now nature. There is only Religion, or beleive of what one dont understand. From this side you will get resistance. On the other side they kill other people in the name of Religion. Each Technology bears positive, and negative sides. It’s only – how will mankind use the Technology? For this we must talk about Power abuse. http://www.WWSEEP.com .
No. But it should be regulated.
No!
No
no
AbsoIutely NO!!!
No
No
Ban yorself
Absolutely this is god job not your fucking bastards playing gods
NO!!!
Banned? What on earth is this concept of banning? Are we to ban it and what? Send them into a “penal colony”? Is it what the “getting to Mars fury” is all about? This question deserves more sarcasm than I am capable of!
no
No, it should be continued and enlarged to include more research and experiments
Absolutely not!! The benefits have bee? tremendous, so far. Don’t let archaic religious ideas (eg, Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist) get i? the way!
NEVER!!!!
yes
Again this!?
This so called article/question is immoral. Shameless propaganda.
Just look how “objective” the question is; emotion appeal is a “bonus”:
“Does the hollow ball of 100 cells called a ?blastocyst? ? formed five days after fertilisation ? have human rights? And is it unethical for scientists to extract stem cells from a blastocyst, destroying it in the process? Or would it be morally wrong to abandon millions of people to their suffering when such a procedure represents a likely cure for more than 70 major diseases?”
Science shall never be banned.
why?
No
Croatia state referendum rules were changed for EU vote. Instead of 50% +1 vote of citizens voters (nation majority) needed it was changed to 50% + 1 vote of people that participated in referendum. Which means that if only 3 persons participated and 2 were for and 1 against it would count as “democratic” decision of a whole nation!
And prior to referendum, Croatian Minister of Foreign Relations and European Integrations Vesna Pusi? (second part of the title related to EU was added years before we joined EU; similar happened with EU flags on all official posts) stated on national RTV that if referendum “fails” it will be repeated every 6 months (legal minimum break between same referendums) until we “pass”…
EU, especially federal super-state, is a collectivist fascist wet dream that slowly becomes nightmare reality.
Wake up, and resist!!!
Why do You even ask a question when You force Your answer Yourself. It is unethical when You try to “smuggle” Your position arbitrary claiming moral high-ground.
No, sience at first place, cruzades are over
absolutly yes,should be banned,when science it’s without GOD ,and it’s used for selfe or for sales either to be used for help ,definetly it is banned from the begining of practice it……science it s a tool like any tool ,so if you do not know how to use a tool you will hurt yourself and of course everybody intorn of you…and as we know from history events only with GOD science should be used,because it’s the tool of GOD,I don’t want that you will think about me like some extremist or fanatic,but this is the truth,when science it’s used by men it turns out that it will be the tool of the devil,and all that they practice and they benefit are the men of devil without knowing this,they will think that they are doing something good,instead they are doing the most bad thing s ever,they kill the normal nature,………
I can imagine that people have used that same argument to oppose pretty much every part of scientific progress since the first primeval man shaped a spear out of a branch.
“Sky give hands! Why you need more?!?”
People have done plenty of what you would describe as “work of the devil” using GOD. [KKK, crusades, jihad] People can do evil things and good things, invoking the will of GOD makes little difference. That’s why there are numerous controls on scientific research. The possibility of something bad coming out of human action is always there, however this shouldn’t outlaw an entire avenue of scientific research which could lead to saving lives.
YES
No..It is an episode..science goes on..further ..there will be no need..
NO
No
No.
No.
NO.
Yes.
Yes.
of course not. some people shouldnt have watched sci-fi in childhood cuz they are too stupid for that kind of art
No….
No…? Why would we not use this valuable medical resource that is otherwise just going to be thrown away. You’re not saving babies by ignoring this otherwise useless genetic material, you’re damning every living and future person/creature that could have been helped by the advances made using it.
We use human bodies and material for medical science all the time, this is by far one of the least upsetting methods of research available to us.
No….it will happen illegaly…..just observe it…and do not lose control!
It depends on which governmental level this ban should take place. A European ban, in my opinion, is wrong no matter how good the arguments, because these kinds of moral questions should be answered in the moral communities within the EU. The Member States (or sometimes regions within Member States) represent these moral communities. Therefore the EU should stay out of it.
European Union, a representation of quantum networked organizations, must implement a firm action based legislation paper, an upcoming Normative Act issued by the appropriate authorities involved in a fundamental life research computational paradigm. Governments, whatsoever, represented by deferentially uneducated bodies, have no rights whatsoever to decide, whether, a method for analyzing bio matter must be formulated on the premise of experimental procedures that have no foundation in extracting data mining issues and observable parameters.
Stem Cell will be banned in EU as they were banned in US accordingly to the standards avoiding further implications within the field of bioscience and biomedicine advances related towards establishing a proper ‘modeling’ in understanding regenerative medicine. Any company that deals with Stem Cell research, destroying blasotcyst, considered to be a life form carrying information determined by natural processed of mutational time reversed dynamics of quantum network formalities of carbon signaling systems, will be prosecuted to the full extension of the law that is about to be implemented by Horizon 2020. Otherwise, you are awaited to experience a real war! To those who do not understand the technology of iPST, courses of epigenetic/genetic/omics transforming technology based on clock setting ‘primers’, pieces of carbon carrying strings, would be offered accordingly!
The EU is OBLIGED TO ENFORCE POLICIES regarding method for manipulating life forms. Thus, The General ANSWER IS YES! By appropriation of established agency! We will fully terminate and prosecute organizations involved in illegal scientific accounts stringed to bio ethics in combination with unfolded realization of complex biological issues via simple principles, rules and laws of Nature!
Induced stem cell studies were in fact advanced due restrictions of stem cell studies. We are to ‘decode’ the fundamental nano machines by establishing foundations of bio bits in expanded discrete space/energies!
the promise of stem cells… for how long should we wait for results?…the truth is it does not yield what others expected. it should no longer be considered especially with human embryos
yes life starts at fertilization. and yes they should ban it.
I dun like stem cells m8
No, science should never be banned, just regulated.
To the general public, life starts when the embryo becomes a fetus, then birthed. At that point, the baby can see, hear, and think, no matter how insignificant it may be. To others, life starts when the embryo develops. Stem cell research requires to obtain cells from a specific source. Extremists believe that using the embryos for science breaks the basic rights of a human. Individuals that agree with Pro-life may strongly disagree with stem cell research, as they believe that all embryos have a chance to develop into a human being. The opposing people believe that it is unethical and immoral to destroy a life, to save a life. By using embryos as tools for science, it is believed that the embryo is immediately deprived of rights and is devalued. The people that do not feel passionate about it, but concerned states that embryonic and adult stem cells have the same function, to replace or cure. Since they do the same, it is pointless to pursue research in embryos, and continue to use adult stem cells. On the other hand, supports agree that life does not start until it is outside of the womb. As long as the embryo is inside of the womb, it does not have an actual life, thus not having human rights. As with every controversy, lies a solution. People on both sides may not necessarily agree on it, but it is better than nothing. One solution for stem cell research is to revert adult stem cells into their young forms. This would force the main research subject to be adult stem cells. Since there are nearly no oppositions to utilizing adult stem cells, this may be the solution.
It is a fact that when something is banned, research scientist make breakthrough discoveries by looping towards larger sets of variables. The case of induced stem cell research , guided by TF\s factors capable of remodeling genome clocks, have made possible life both life extension and understanding basic paradigms in life science , applied physics of nano strings, particles probability distribution and energy wave mechanics, we all call some kind of objective science. Many do not understand that stem cells cannot cure, because cell dont work independently, that is cell-cell interference through fluxes of specific matter carrying energy , in general called signals, so that often the problem is cell cell mis guiding signals , emerging into wars and destruction , the very same mechanism operating in macro systems, within society. Unfortunately, many sick minded people think that the inside of the force is within a single gene of a singel locus space, which violates both quantum mechanics, and advanced notion of light entangled nucleation centers! Thus, this debate, is meaningless , as far as we don\t perceive the basic of a physical process, there is no way to advance bio medical science. Another think I read, much of incompetent on the general scale subjects, people that may be holding financial assets, but drops of useful mind, read this carefully, adult cells cannot be reverted, because their chromosomes , telomers have been shortened out, and unless we pop out with some kind of an artificial nano glue, there is no way, each time a cell divides to get back to its original state. That is the problem of cancer, and unless cancer origini implication have been realized, no stem cells tech would ever work through. You give a helicopter to an Aborigine, and wait to have water delivered within refugees in a desert. It dont work, tools of tools, in bio systems, are their own tools, and we cannot invent tools to fix tools, Do you get that! >> Adult stem cells may be maintained by a specific in0put of energy spaces! Since there are tons of abortions, some legal, other illegal, the problem is not within the stem cell method, but within the understanding of basics and meanings of life. And we know so little about it, almost nothing on that scale, despite, many thinking of knowing much. WHat is life|? To me life is every functional genome encapsulated by proteome, and stringed to metabolome, a matter of space/energy scale thinking. What is the most fundamental unit of physics, once it was thought that was a cell, then, a molecule, then an atom, then a nuclus, now a quark, And its i funny that we dont get it that the smaller energy scale wise we go the larger space wise it is, so that expansion of ??? takes place, while compressing !!! is obviously an issue of the imagination of the human kind. It is strange, is not it, the more we ban , the more we learn. Observing matrices! I dream that one day, people will have no abortions, no organ harvesting and wars, but a method for regenerating their own bodies through bio nano tech. What is that on the verge of science, is an open debate to general, basic and specific science!
This research and any application shouldn’t be profitoriented.
A citizen of state of inventors of nothing really tells others how to organize research and applications, really?
No but it also should not be profit oriented.
Stopping progress?
Banning the possible cure for untold numbers of congenital and genetic disorders so allowing millions of people to live in pain & misery ? seriously ?? This page is really losing the plot.
They never had it in a first place.
Paweł Kunio .
https://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/genie/gs/law/lawembryonic
why ?
NO
NON
NEIN
NÃO
NIET
ÑØ
yes .
No it shouldnt
NO, BECAUSE IT WILL BE USEFUL FOR RESEARCH THAT WILL,BE A KEY TO CURES OF MANY DISEASES.
It’s an amazing paragraph in favor of all the online visitors; they will obtain advantage from it
I am sure.