If you aren't on this ping list and are interested
in articles about Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Posted on 05/17/2013 3:22:17 PM PDT by neverdem
Flashback: Schumer, Franken urged IRS to target tea party in 2012
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
Techniques can be used to revert ADULT cells into the sort of stem cells needed, which makes it completely ethical. No embryo needed!
Yes I’m aware. Thanks.
I don’t think embryos should EVER be used but it appears there are some in the scientific community that continue to push embryonic research. God’s wrath will visit us if we don’t stop this.
What I was discussing was alteration of gene regulation. What I think of by “gene manipulation” is the alteration of nucleotide sequences (by adding, deleting, or changing their identity). If, for instance, my child were to die and I wanted to clone his replacement from one of his fetal cells that are still in my body, I would not need to manipulate any genes. I would just expose the recovered fetal cells to the proper growth factors and hormones to induce those cells to grow into a human being. But if I wanted green, blue, and red fluorescent clones of my child, I would definitely have to engage in some gene manipulation.
Actually, I kind of like the idea of fluorescent children. They would be easy to find in the dark by shining UV light on them. Excuse me while I go write a grant proposal to do this work...
Even if the scientists continue to ignore religious ideas, eventually they’ll get it through their heads which gets results and which grows tumors. If their intent is to cure things, the problem will solve itself just from that.
Any scientist who understands both cancer biology and fetal development could predict that injecting embryonic cells into a non-embryonic organism would have a high chance of causing tumors.
Long before it was reported that experiments with embryonic cells had resulted in tumors, I had posted here that I thought tumor growth was a significant risk and the biological mechanisms I thought would be responsible.
The problem is with scientists who presumably have the same knowledge base as I, but who let themselves be blinded by eagerness to give legitimacy to the abortion industry (in the belief that using murdered babies to save lives would make people more accepting of abortion), and eagerness to get the pots of grant money that would surely be available for this kind of research. I may be a scientist, but my foremost obligation is to be ethical in my science (whether the specific object of my ethical behavior is protected by law or not). I will never be unethical just because of grant money. And I have no desire to legitimize abortion.
Yeah I do that once in a while. Oh well...
I understand your point, and I’m not going to disagree.
When I think of the word manipulate, I think of it as taking action to cause something or someone to do something it wouldn’t have otherwise done.
Left alone these genes wouldn’t do what you want them to, so some action must be taken to get them to do what you want.
Thank you for your response.
Oregon Health and Science University
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.