Alternative ideas for stem cells. (1 Viewer)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Now I'm sure everyone has heard of George w. Bush's veto of the stem cell bill; because killing stem cells is like killing people, even though Bush is pro-death penalty.

MY thought. Is it plausable to have a drug, radiation, or whatever. Which stops the meiosis transformation of the diploid cells to haploid cells in people.

Now something that I would think might be related. Not to long along I seen a thing on how some frogs had mutated or something to which the female frogs would lay eggs that don't require fertilization and are all virtually very close clones to the original female frog.

My other idea.
Which I guess would require a stem cell to start from. Would essentially be the idea of to clone the stem cell into a non-human cell. Find a viable non-human eukaryotic cell. Then remove the nucleus from the stem cell and place it in the non-human eukaryotic cell in place of it's original nucleus. You then can find a new name for the type of cell. It would technically not be a stem cell. It would also not be technically cloning. Create these new names which aren't outright banned. You then can also make the claim that you are only killing off bacteria(or whatever non-human eukaryotic cell you choose). Which these right-wing crazies can't say that they are killing bacteria souls. It would be aweful funny if they did.


<disclaimer>My level of knowledge of biology is grade 11. I don't claim I know ANYTHING.</disclaimer>
 
Last edited:
335
0
munky99999 said:
Now I'm sure everyone has heard of George w. Bush's veto of the stem cell bill; because killing stem cells is like killing people, even though Bush is pro-death penalty.
I'm afraid this makes little or no sense at all. Killing stem cells is not killing people. You need to "kill" a fetus to get the stem cells for other usage. The debate is whether it is ok to "kill" a fetus to get the stem cells and so on.

munky99999 said:
MY thought. Is it plausable to have a drug, radiation, or whatever. Which stops the meiosis transformation of the diploid cells to haploid cells in people.
Why would that be done? There are two different types of stem cells, embryonic stem cells and somatic stem cells (adult stem cells). The somatic stem cells can be found in adult persons.

For a more in-depth description of the difference of embryonic and somatic stem cells and for a general introduction to stem cells go http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/.

munky9999 said:
Now something that I would think might be related. Not to long along I seen a thing on how some frogs had mutated or something to which the female frogs would lay eggs that don't require fertilization and are all virtually very close clones to the original female frog.
That is most likely related to parthenogenic ie. development of an embryo without fertilization by a male.

Now I'm sure everyone has heard of George w. Bush's veto of the stem cell bill; because killing stem cells is like killing people, even though Bush is pro-death penalty.

MY thought. Is it plausable to have a drug, radiation, or whatever. Which stops the meiosis transformation of the diploid cells to haploid cells in people.

Now something that I would think might be related. Not to long along I seen a thing on how some frogs had mutated or something to which the female frogs would lay eggs that don't require fertilization and are all virtually very close clones to the original female frog.

My other idea.
Which I guess would require a stem cell to start from. Would essentially be the idea of to clone the stem cell into a non-human cell. Find a viable non-human eukaryotic cell. Then remove the nucleus from the stem cell and place it in the non-human eukaryotic cell in place of it's original nucleus. You then can find a new name for the type of cell. It would technically not be a stem cell. It would also not be technically cloning. Create these new names which aren't outright banned. You then can also make the claim that you are only killing off bacteria(or whatever non-human eukaryotic cell you choose). Which these right-wing crazies can't say that they are killing bacteria souls. It would be aweful funny if they did.
If you for example take an epithelial ("skin cell"), strip it of its nucleus and replace it with a stem cell nucleus, it wouldn't be able to function correctly as its command center if you will, have been removed.

This is perhaps not an exact analogy (or a good one for that matter), but it may help your understanding. Let's say a persons brain is replaced by another persons brain. That wouldn't work that well, now would it?

But then again, if you have advanced technology and a enormous number of cells to test on, it might be possible, but it is purely speculations I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm afraid this makes little or no sense at all. Killing stem cells is not killing people. You need to "kill" a fetus to get the stem cells for other usage. The debate is whether it is ok to "kill" a fetus to get the stem cells and so on.
This is what I don't understand. There was on bill to outright ban the killing of fetuses for stem cells. This got a 100% vote from the senate. This was expected. Now the second bill of the 3, was the big one which would moreso legalize and fund stem cell research. Bush doesn't want this done because 1 stem cell could turn into a envitro snowflake(i have no idea what he means by snowflake) child. Killing just 1 stem cell is killing 1 soul of the 1 person it could turn into.

If you for example take an epithelial ("skin cell"), strip it of its nucleus and replace it with a stem cell nucleus, it wouldn't be able to function correctly as its command center if you will, have been removed.

This is perhaps not an exact analogy (or a good one for that matter), but it may help your understanding. Let's say a persons brain is replaced by another persons brain. That wouldn't work that well, now would it?

But then again, if you have advanced technology and a enormous number of cells to test on, it might be possible, but it is purely speculations I guess.
I think I understand what you mean. But my suggestion was to find a non-human viable alternative cell. Even if it were to turn out to be Botulism bacteria cells.

The way I understand cloning to work. You have this one cell, you remove it's nucleus, then you take the other's nucleus and place it in the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
335
0
munky99999 said:
This is what I don't understand. There was on bill to outright ban the killing of fetuses for stem cells. This got a 100% vote from the senate. This was expected. Now the second bill of the 3, was the big one which would moreso legalize and fund stem cell research. Bush doesn't want this done because 1 stem cell could turn into a envitro snowflake(i have no idea what he means by snowflake) child. Killing just 1 stem cell is killing 1 soul of the 1 person it could turn into.


I think I understand what you mean. But my suggestion was to find a non-human viable alternative cell. Even if it were to turn out to be Botulism bacteria cells.

The way I understand cloning to work. You have this one cell, you remove it's nucleus, then you take the other's nucleus and place it in the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer" [Broken]
Actually, you can remove one cell from the entity. I believe it is at the 8 cell statium.

So what you are saying is to take the nucleus from bacteria and place it in a human cell and expect it to work? Seriously? Do you even believe that yourself? It might be possible to genetically manipulate bacteria that only has a couple of genes, but remember that a human has 30000-50000 genes depending on who you ask.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, you can remove one cell from the entity. I believe it is at the 8 cell statium.

So what you are saying is to take the nucleus from bacteria and place it in a human cell and expect it to work? Seriously? Do you even believe that yourself? It might be possible to genetically manipulate bacteria that only has a couple of genes, but remember that a human has 30000-50000 genes depending on who you ask.
Other way around. But it doesn't have to be a bacteria.

Find a viable non-human eukaryotic cell.

Essentially create a cell system which has human dna replicating, but using a non-human eukaryotic cell. Which then by definition you wouldn't have to call it a stem cell. Which would bypass the whole stem cell ban issues because it's not a stem cell.
 
335
0
Ok, the same argument works the other way around. Why would a human cell nucleus work in another species cell?
 
Mattara said:
Ok, the same argument works the other way around. Why would a human cell nucleus work in another species cell?
Well again I'd like to mention that I know very little of biology. But, I take this as in the situation where a human can't fertilize a horse or viceversa(I know it's a gross example.) For example. There are birds who can't interbreed with closely related birds. Or the Horse and Zebra type thing. Now I'd guess that this is the same thing which you are speaking of.

So you're right human dna and cell-brain wont be working in another cell. But perhaps you can find a non-human cell which is from say a bacteria or something which WILL work.

Like I'm not educated enough in biology to give a very accurate answer. Like to suggest going to the Abaganooosh bacteria remove the nucleus and replace with bacteria's nucleus. Then the bacteria cell with human dna will start to go through mitosis and etc. Thusly allowing for human stem cell generation.

I would also like to point out that I'm in Canada and stem cell research is legal here. I'm just thinking of alternatives that might allow for the vast amount of American scientists the option to work on stem cell research also.
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top