News & Politics - Stem Cell Debate

***4N6 DNA*** · 11-02-2007, 07:54 PM

Hey everyone

I looked for a similar thread, but didnt see it. I was wondering what you guys's take on stem cell research is. Any ideas you have on the topic.

As a molecular bologist, I see the enormous potential of Stem Cell research. I believe that the answers are there for us to find, but we just have to overcome a lot of barriers, people who are not aware of this potential, or have the wrong ideas of it. Progress has been done, its just seems that the strength in numbers of the people who are scared of the possibilities is still heavy.

What about you guys?

elisheva · 11-04-2007, 08:43 PM

I'm in favour of exploring stem cell research - I think if we can save lives and heal people then we should - but I at the same time have to admit that my knowledge of advanced bio etc is severely limited, so I would never set out my opinion as authoritative in any way.

I haven't read much about stem cell research in a while - most of what I remember reading triggered a "this is good" instinct in me, but I think I really should do more research too. Does that make sense?

(P.S. love the icon!)

***4N6 DNA*** · 11-04-2007, 09:54 PM

It makes a lot of sense and I think that it is great that you are like that. You don't make assumtions and take sides when you dont know that much about a topic.

The stem cell debate is a really touchy subject with a lot of people. But some people don't understand why scientists want to study stem cells and becasue they don't know the science behind it. I am reading a book called Stem Cell Now and there is a really interesting section in it that I thought I'd share

In media coverage, we frequently hear about how these cells could generate specialized tissues for transplantaion, along with a long list of diseases that could be helped in this way. But while technically accurate, this presents a woefully incomplete picture of the potential scientific and medical utility of embryonic stem cells.

By far the best explanation that I have heard for scientist interest in these cells came from Lawrence S.B. Goldstein, a leading researcher in the field from the University of California, San Diego. In a November 2004 speech at Rice University, Goldstein explained that becasue of their unique attributes, embryonic stem cells could help us bypass four current "bottlenecks" in the development of medical therapies.

First, there arent enough sources of tissues for transplantation to meet medical needs at present, but we might grow vast amounts of tissues from embryonic stem cells. Second, drugs are extremely expensive to bring to market becasue of the cost of human trials and becasue animal trials can often lead scientists down the wrong road, but drug dscovery might proceed much more efficiently if we could test drugs in human stem cell preparations. Third, we currently lack a complete understanding of the mechanisms by which many diseases develop, but research on stem cells bearing the genetic signature for various diseases would allow for greater understanding of how thse conditions emerge (which, in turn, could suggest new possibilities for treatment). And finally, we see enormous variation among individuals when it comes to their responses to various drugs and other therapies, but certain kinds of stem cells could eventually lead to therapies specially tailored to individual patients. Remember all this whenever anyone suggest or implies that embryonic stem cell reseach has just one purpose. Stem cells are "not a one trick pony," Goldstein explined, rather the field should be thought of as a "broad enabling techlology," a point that has frequently been lost in debate.

Info on the book Stem Cell Now by Christopher Thomas Scott

PS: Thanks for the comment on my av

migamoo · 11-05-2007, 09:43 AM

I wrote a paper on the ethics of Stem Cell research last year for school. Needless to say, I'm for it. There are so many things that can be helped, cancer to Alzheimer's, for example, but people do not understand it. When they think "Stem Cell" they think embryonic stem cells and say, "NO!". But there's so much more to it than embryos. There is a lot of research going to adult stem cells and from what I have read, most breakthroughs have come through these cells, not embryonic.

**sunnykerr** · 11-05-2007, 07:21 PM

I'm absolutely in favour of stem-cell research. Especially given the fact that stem cells are daily being thrown away by the thousands either because couples undergoing fertility treatments have reached the results they wish for or because the storage facilities where they're being housed need the room or because they're about to "expire" in terms of viability.

I have an enormous respect for people on the "pro-life" end of the issue, but I also think this isn't an issue where one side ought to dominate the discourse. If a person is against stem-cell research, then they shouldn't donate their stem cells to it. Nobody is forcing anyone to be a part of it.

But, when I think of all the advances that could be achieved through stem cells research, and when I look at the very real fact that stem cells are daily left to "die" anyway... To me it seems incredibly pointless to at least not explore the possibilities.

***4N6 DNA*** · 11-05-2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fieryangel (View Post)

There is a lot of research going to adult stem cells and from what I have read, most breakthroughs have come through these cells, not embryonic.

You are right, they are doing wonders with adult stem cells. Most recently with adult stems cells taken bone marrow called MAPC's (multi-potent adult progenitor cells}. They can be made to differentiate into bone nd cartilage cells, skeletal muscle cells, fat cells, endothelial cells of the internal organs and more. It is very promising research surpassing the ethical issues facing research on embryonic stem cells.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Especially given the fact that stem cells are daily being thrown away by the thousands either because couples undergoing fertility treatments have reached the results they wish for or because the storage facilities where they're being housed need the room or because they're about to "expire" in terms of viability.

Also beling thrwn away as the umbilical cord.

elisheva · 11-06-2007, 08:12 AM

I remember reading (and posting here, actually) an article about the potential of stem cells from the umbilical cord.

***4N6 DNA*** · 11-21-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Scientists Bypass Need for Embryo to Get Stem Cells
By GINA KOLATA
Published: November 21, 2007

Two teams of scientists reported yesterday that they had turned human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without having to make or destroy an embryo — a feat that could quell the ethical debate troubling the field.

All they had to do, the scientists said, was add four genes. The genes reprogrammed the chromosomes of the skin cells, making the cells into blank slates that should be able to turn into any of the 220 cell types of the human body, be it heart, brain, blood or bone. Until now, the only way to get such human universal cells was to pluck them from a human embryo several days after fertilization, destroying the embryo in the process.

The need to destroy embryos has made stem cell research one of the most divisive issues in American politics, pitting President Bush against prominent Republicans like Nancy Reagan, and patient advocates who hoped that stem cells could cure diseases like Alzheimer’s. The new studies could defuse the issue as a presidential election nears.

full Article here at NYTimes

Pending tests to further investigate really how similar these are to embryonic stem cells, this could be a huge breakthrough

**sunnykerr** · 11-21-2007, 05:33 PM

Pardon my ignorance of anything to do with science and how stuff works... but if you can make embryonic stem cells from skin cells... doesn't that fall under the whole ban on cloning?

I mean, I applaud the attempt to get around the religious debate about science, but isn't it opening up just another can of worms?

***4N6 DNA*** · 11-21-2007, 05:50 PM

Embryonic stem cells have such high potential becasue they are un-committed and thus can grow into any cell type for the body. The article is stating that the scientists have found a way to use skin cells instead of embryos to make new cells that act similar to embryonic stem cells. It's kinda like erasing the skin cell's memory and telling it to go be something else like a tissue cell, or a liver cell. No embryos are even being touched in this method so it shouldn't open up a new can of worms

It isn't a slam dunk though, there are many many more hoops this method will have to jump through, but its a great step forward

elisheva · 11-21-2007, 09:45 PM

That's actually really really cool, if it ends up working. I'm a liberal arts type myself, but I have to say that science is really amazing.

**sunnykerr** · 11-22-2007, 06:11 PM

Ah, see, I was wondering if the same people who think stem-cell research is murder might say this is like cloning. But I guess, like I thought, I was just showing my ignorance.

***4N6 DNA*** · 11-28-2007, 09:05 PM

It is a misconception that stem cells can clone people. Stem cells are considered "pluripotent" becasue they can differentiate into all the cell types in our body, but they do not have the ablity to contribute to extraembryonic tissue (like placenta). Thus, alone, they can not create an entire human life, which includes cloning

**TheAngel** · 11-29-2007, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4N6 DNA (View Post)

Embryonic stem cells have such high potential becasue they are un-committed and thus can grow into any cell type for the body. The article is stating that the scientists have found a way to use skin cells instead of embryos to make new cells that act similar to embryonic stem cells. It's kinda like erasing the skin cell's memory and telling it to go be something else like a tissue cell, or a liver cell. No embryos are even being touched in this method so it shouldn't open up a new can of worms

It isn't a slam dunk though, there are many many more hoops this method will have to jump through, but its a great step forward

The problem is, that's going to be a lot more expensive and a lot more difficult to do with a much higher potential for things to go wrong. I don't see the problem with embryonic stem cells. First of all, there are a ton of embryos that are destroyed during in vitro fertilization because they are not considered viable by doctors. How on earth can people not justify using stem cells from those embryos if it can help others?

***4N6 DNA*** · 11-29-2007, 11:31 PM

I agree with the problem you bring forward and I also agree on your point of view of using the embryonic stem cells. But sadly, it doesn't seem to matter what we think. People who do not share our views stop any legislation that would even give us a chance. The president vetos the bill even before the ink on our request even dries.

I feel frustrated that the issue of the wasted embryo's and also ones in umbilical cords seems to go unaddressed no matter how much we try to make it obvious. It makes perfect logical sense and it is easy to understand that it perfectly good embryos going to waste, and we should be able to use them. Yet it doesnt seem to get through to the people it should. Soon, private funding for this is going to run out and the US will drop even further in progress of countries that by the time we realize the true potential of stem cells, we will be so far behind

Thank you for your input and thoughts about this