Ian- Are you against the existence and operation of fertility clinics? If all of the eggs harvested from a woman are not used by that couple, they are generally disposed of and are very rarely used by others for invetro fertilization.

David- Aren’t the rodent models used in Keirsted’s previous experiments genetically closer to humans than any primate? If efficacy has been established in those models, why would you test lesser related mammals to attempt to prove safety in humans? Just do a human clinical trial already. The paralysis community has been working towards these clinical trials for better than 6 years.

Jonathan- I agree with what you are trying to say. I would suggest double checking your terminology before engaging in a debate, and avoiding personal attacks. It weakens your position.

Meagan- I do believe the donors of the fertilized eggs had to give consent for them to be used in research way back when these stem cell lines were established.

For more on this topic check out Unite 2 Fight Paralysis, Working 2 Walk and the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act.

Furthermore there is nothing that says “The embryos that are used are discarded from fertility clinics” is morally acceptable. Again these embryos are human beings.

You also fail the recognise the difference between an embryo and an egg when you say “Since the human female naturally discards her own embryo once a month your weak and powerless part of your comment is not valid.” Menstruation involves the expulsion of an egg, not an embryo, which I believe renders your argument weak and powerless.

However, ESCs produce tumors as has been demonstrated repeatedly in animal studies and shamefully, by the casualties of unregulated ‘stem cell tourism’ to places where ESC ‘therapy’ is offered.

Geron is using ESCs to make progenitor cells which are then injected. They are convinced from rat studies of the purity of the sample (i.e. that the danger of tumor-inducing ESCs being present is negligible). Nevertheless this is a first in human test of a technology that is potentially hazardous and yet Geron has (last thing I heard) resisted doing tests on anything larger than a rat.

In 2005 Keirstead argued that ‘some scientists believe’ that the rodent is a better model for human stem cells than other the primates model. At a presentation I attended in London in July 2009 Dr Jane Lebkowski (Chief SO at Geron) was still refusing to admit the need to look at anything larger than a rat before moving to human trials.

Even if ES cells had no other ethical problem (if for example IPS or something similar do prove to be functionally equivalent) I believe it would be unethical to do FIH research without testing safety with primates. If, God forbid, anything goes wrong in this trial then the blame will lie squarely with the commercial and political interests that pushed it through. Maybe they get away with it but still it will have been a case of excessive risk using human subjects.

The use of embryos in this case is not to increase our life span but used to repair damage to spinal cord injuries allowing those who are paralyzed to lead productive lives.

The embryos that are used are discarded from fertility clinics. So you can throw them away or use them to help others.

Since the human female naturally discards her own embryo once a month your weak and powerless part of your comment is not valid.