That's not really relevant though. Since the article talks about the second trimester. The supreme court rulings aren't relevant either as the research was conducted in the UK.Harmor wrote:
Isn't it illegal to kill a fetus in the third-trimester? I mean the Surpreme Court is today discussing the legality of Partial Birth Abortion.Bertster7 wrote:
I have already been over this. It is to do with the differences in stages of development between mice and humans. When a human is born their eyes are already developed and work. Mice, like dogs, are born blind - their eyes develop later. In the article it says the stages of development of the cells used is equivalent to embryonic stem cells in humans.Harmor wrote:
Are we reading the same article...PLEASE someone explain to me where in the article is shows that it was embryoics stem cells? The cells were from three to five-day-old mice, which means to me that its 'Adult Stem Cells'.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.They also mention they would prefer to take the adult stem cell route in humans, but they don't know if that will work.BBC wrote:
To get human retinal cells at the same stage of development, however, would involve taking stem cells from a foetus during the second trimester of pregnancy
Hope thats cleared it up for you a bit.
Do they suspect that they have to kill a fetus in the third-trimester? Could they just harvest some cells and have the baby born missing some of its eyesite? Or will the cells in the newborn repair themselves and the baby have near normal vision?
If so I could see couples having a kid, harvest some cells, to cure blindness for themselves or a family member, if it ment that the newborn wouldn't itself be blind or partially blind.
If so I could see couples having a kid, harvest some cells, to cure blindness for themselves or a family member, if it ment that the newborn wouldn't itself be blind or partially blind.
I don't know. I'm not sure about the harvesting process. I would have thought they would use donated foetuses from abortions or something like that. You could well have a point about couples having kids to cure blindness though, which isn't a very nice reason to have a child.Harmor wrote:
Do they suspect that they have to kill a fetus in the third-trimester? Could they just harvest some cells and have the baby born missing some of its eyesite? Or will the cells in the newborn repair themselves and the baby have near normal vision?
If so I could see couples having a kid, harvest some cells, to cure blindness for themselves or a family member, if it ment that the newborn wouldn't itself be blind or partially blind.
The sooner ESCs can be cultured in a lab the better. It's only a matter of time.
eh, don't be so quick to declare victory, President Bush tried that, and somehow I don't think it worked all that well.Stingray24 wrote:
Checkmate.