GreekChat.com Forums - Stem Cells from aborted fetuses

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - Stem Cells from aborted fetuses (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=51915)

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
People don't understand that the research will be done anyway. Except instead of our country being the best in science, now we're playing catchup to fricking Korea.

-Rudey

Well, at least science on our soil. PLENTY of American scientists have moved overseas to work on this. You can bet that our pharmaceutical companies aren't letting this slow their research down either.

I have a feeling that the law will be called into question very soon. The value of stem cells is being discovered to be simply too great to ignore.

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Well, at least science on our soil. PLENTY of American scientists have moved overseas to work on this. You can bet that our pharmaceutical companies aren't letting this slow their research down either.

I have a feeling that the law will be called into question very soon. The value of stem cells is being discovered to be simply too great to ignore.

I have no money invested in American pharma. So far my investments in a certain country I dislike with a passion has paid off quite nicely in the past couple weeks alone.

-Rudey

I support full scale, unregulated stem cell research.

We can introduce regulations after we actually understand what is going on.

I support stem cell research.

I have doubts that those who are against it will turn down the new medical advances that came from it. And therein lies the hypocrisy.

Quote:

Originally posted by labeachgrl
I support stem cell research.

I have doubts that those who are against it will turn down the new medical advances that came from it. And therein lies the hypocrisy.

My father did. It's simply a matter of walking the talk. And if you question this, read the second post.

Otherwise they would be thrown away.

I donated all three of my girls umbilical cords and placenta. I also had the option of "banking" it with a private company should we ever need it. I've read that a large percentage of umbilical cords and placenta's are trashed after delivery. I find that unfortunate since the research in this area is so promising. I am personally pro-life, but do support the research on stem cells from the afterbirth of a delivery (not that we would ever be able to differentiate then from those of an aborted fetus).

They are developing methods for some cases that allow for stem cells to be extracted from a patient's bone marrow for use in the same patient. Perhaps we are our own cures.

This is a very exciting time for medical science.

If you're interested in learning more about the stem cell research debate...

Here is an interesting article written by two of the members of the President's Council on Bioethics:

Reason as Our Guide by Elizabeth Blackburn and Janet Rowley

*Basically, this article is saying that some of the reports written by the President's Council on Bioethics were biased and contained incomplete information. Here is an excerpt:

Quote:

In being concerned about the content of these reports, neither of which makes any recommendations for legislative or policy actions, are we worrying too much? We think not. Indeed, already, sadly as a result of the way the sections on aging research in the report were written, the myth that longevity has an inevitable tradeoff of diminished fertility is now gaining a further foothold: witness the January 26, 2004, issue of the The New Republic. In it, an article about this report of the Council falls right into the trap: it states, “But changes come with longer life. Worms and mice that are altered for extended lifespans become sterile, or barely reproduce.” The public is done a disservice when science is presented incompletely; myths are then perpetuated.

And here is some correspondence regarding the article:

Taking the Stem Cell Debate to the Public by Leonard I. Zon, Laurie Zoloth, and Suzanne Kadereit

*This is a pro-stem cell research article. Here is an excerpt:

Quote:

By stacking the deck with conservative opinions, and not accurately discussing the scientific issues, the Bioethics Council has become irrelevant to the scientific community and presents a jaundiced view to the public.

Stem cell research and its applications have the potential to revolutionize human health care. Recent polls show support for embryonic stem cell research, even with conservative voters. The public, as the major benefactor of biomedical research and the target population of beneficial clinical advances, has the right to a fact-based discussion of the science regarding stem cells. It is therefore time that the debate on stem cell research, with its risks and benefits, be taken to the public. A debate on stem cell research restricted to the President's Council on Bioethics is a disservice to the public.

Beyond Therapy … by Robert Sinsheimer

*This one disagrees with the first authors' approach and reasoning, but agrees with stem cell research:

Quote:

...the Council's report, “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness” (2003). The thrust of this report is that some of the directions of current biological research will, if carried to fulfillment, result in major changes in the nature of human life—changes that the report regards with foreboding...But so be it. The nature of human life has changed repeatedly and profoundly in the past—with the invention of agriculture, with the invention of writing, with the development of machines and mechanical power, with the advent of modern science and medicine. The nature of human life is different in 2004 a.d. from what it was in 1000 a.d. or 46 b.c. or 5000 b.c. or 10,000 b.c., and it will change again in the future.

The concerns expressed in the report are earnest, and they should be confronted in earnest.

Ethics as Our Guide by Michael Cook

*This article is concerned about the lack of ethics in the first article, and seems to be somewhat anti-stem cell research:

Quote:

However, it does not follow that if the benefits of embryo stem cell research had been presented more persuasively and in greater detail, then the case for ‘non-commercial, federal, peer-reviewed funding’ would be unassailable. Such a view appears to be based squarely on a utilitarian view of the moral status of embryos: that the good flowing from destructive research outweighs the evil of embryo destruction. Far from being a neutral scientific analysis, this expresses a commitment to the proposition that biomedical progress is more important than the defence of human life.

If twentieth century philosophy of science has taught us anything, it is that the aspiration to pure scientific objectivity is a dangerous illusion. Research programs always embody philosophical and moral assumptions that must be openly defended. If Blackburn and Rowley want government support for embryo stem cell research, they must justify their bioethical approach and not hide behind a smokescreen of indignation over Blackburn's unwilling departure from the Council.

Scientists and Bioethics Councils by Anne McLaren

*This article is written by a UK researcher that agrees with a lack of scientific evidence in the President's Council:

Quote:

Curiously, only a single such [animal] experiment is cited: an impressive but somewhat recondite piece of work from Jaenisch's laboratory (Rideout et al. 2002), using cloned and genetically modified mouse embryonic stem cells to treat a form of mouse hepatitis. A wider consideration of work on animal models, together with some emphasis on the potential use of human embryonic stem cells for toxicity testing and drug design by pharmaceutical companies, is in part what Elizabeth Blackburn and Janet Rowley believe ‘would help the public and scientists better assess the content of the report’. If they requested inclusion of such material, it is unfortunate that their requests were declined.

A Voice for Research, a Voice for Patients by Daniel Perry

*This article complains about the lack of patients on the President's Council:

Quote:

Speaking for the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, our concern is not only the small number of researchers on the Council and lack of complete scientific data being shared with policy makers, but the absence of patient representation on the Council itself. With the exception of public comment periods, patient organizations have no voice in the work of the Council as it discusses issues that profoundly impact them. Now, with one less member standing up for research and thus patients, our concern grows even stronger.

Ethereal Ethics by Robin Lovell-Badge

*This article was written by a member of bioethics councils in the U.K., and criticizes the U.S.'s approach to stem cell research (the U.K. has been supportive of such research):

Quote:

It is impossible to have an informed debate without accurate and appropriate information, and there seems little point in having a debate that is not informed. Because of various sensitivities, it seemed to me before the creation of the President's Council on Bioethics that for far too long the issues relating to embryo research had not been considered properly within the United States. The President's Council was therefore an opportunity to redress this situation. But from the evidence I fear it will not succeed. Moreover, it does the general public a disservice to pretend to have a serious committee exploring issues of bioethics when that committee fails to live up to the ideals of impartiality and rationality.

Anyway, sorry about the long post, but I thought some people might be interested in what the scientific community is saying about the topic.

I think these experts are pretty much dead-on.

We're taking these knee-jerk reactions from uninformed politicians and projecting them on the scientific and medical communities without really giving these communities much say in the deal. I'm not surprised by these opinions and I agree with most of them.

Re: If you're interested in learning more about the stem cell research debate...

I didn't know Rowley was on the council. I know Kass is. Kass is a great speaker. Rowley is brilliant but she bored me in a couple lectures.

Anyway, here is the link to the president's council on bioethics: http://www.bioethics.gov/

-Rudey

Quote:

Originally posted by DWAlphaGam
Here is an interesting article written by two of the members of the President's Council on Bioethics:

Reason as Our Guide by Elizabeth Blackburn and Janet Rowley

*Basically, this article is saying that some of the reports written by the President's Council on Bioethics were biased and contained incomplete information. Here is an excerpt:

And here is some correspondence regarding the article:

Taking the Stem Cell Debate to the Public by Leonard I. Zon, Laurie Zoloth, and Suzanne Kadereit

*This is a pro-stem cell research article. Here is an excerpt:

Beyond Therapy … by Robert Sinsheimer

*This one disagrees with the first authors' approach and reasoning, but agrees with stem cell research:

Ethics as Our Guide by Michael Cook

*This article is concerned about the lack of ethics in the first article, and seems to be somewhat anti-stem cell research:

Scientists and Bioethics Councils by Anne McLaren

*This article is written by a UK researcher that agrees with a lack of scientific evidence in the President's Council:

A Voice for Research, a Voice for Patients by Daniel Perry

*This article complains about the lack of patients on the President's Council:

Ethereal Ethics by Robin Lovell-Badge

*This article was written by a member of bioethics councils in the U.K., and criticizes the U.S.'s approach to stem cell research (the U.K. has been supportive of such research):

Anyway, sorry about the long post, but I thought some people might be interested in what the scientific community is saying about the topic.

bumped for IowaState..

Re: Stem Cells from aborted fetuses

In response to the questions and responses of others:

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
I heard recently (from a friend who is an MD) that in some test cases they were able to get seven (I think that's the right number) out of seven patients treated with stem cells for severe congestive heart failure to regenerate their dead heart tissues simply by injecting their own stem cells into the heart. All seven of the patients have since been released from the hostpital and are on their ways to full recoveries. None were expected to live for very long without this treatment.

The research is extremely experimental and somewhat misleading the MD's and subsequently the public.

This research is based mainly in Sweden at the Karolinska and Germany at the Max Planck. The cells were NOT human fetal STEM CELLS. They were BONE MARROW DERIVED cells injected onto the heart...

There is "something" in the hematopoeitic cells--also know as Stem Cells--that can stabilize ischemic injury after myocardial infarct. It is unknown why that happens. But it is STRONGLY proven that the cells that replace the infarcted zone are DEFINITELY NOT TRANSDIFFERENTIATED BONE MARROW CELLS CHANGED INTO CARDIOMYOCYTES!!! That is proven by reseachers of the name: Nygren J et al. (2004) Nature Medicine Volume 10 pp. 494...

Much intensive investigation about the full potential is bone marrow derived stem cells is still going on. Even my research has some interest...

Huge misconception that Bernardo Nidal-Girard's group has placed...

Quote:

It really opens the eyes though as to what this technology could mean to the medical field. We could cure countless diseases and drastically improve the quality of life for many people.

There is a major contraversy over whether human stem cells from aborted fetuses should be used to further medical science -- and in the event of a breakthrough, be used to cure diseases (like Alzheimer's).

I can see the justification in objecting to doctors actually paying women to harvest fetuses from their wombs in order to obtain stem cells. However, I can't see the justification in just allowing this resource to simply be destroyed when tapping it could mean so much good could be done.

I believe that in this case we are wasting a valuable resource. Whatever your stance on abortion. It happens. This is the only good that I can see coming of this. Anyone have an opinion?

There is a difference between selectively aborted fetal tissue, non-selectively aborted fetal tissue (such as from miscarriages) and cord and placental tissue.

Selectively aborted tissue with existing laws is hard to come by... Within seconds, cells must be isolated upon removal. Normal human cells die quickly and cannot be frozen intact.

Tissues from miscarriages occur because some major and lethal genetic event happened where the female's uterus is unable to support the birth. Currently, those are the cell lines that everyone is working with and talking about.

There are also the unused frozen embryos that cannot be used for any in vitro fertilization because they have been frozen too long. Using those cells are also what are being discussed.

Cord and placental tissue may not be as "pluripotent" or "totipotent" as embryonic stem cells. Meaning, they cannot change into any cells that is missing, malfunctional or damaged.

In mice, embryonic stem cell technology is highly developed and well understood. Many researchers are using ES cell derived mice for their research and discovering new ideas.

Most researchers want to introduce "therapeutic genes" into folks that have diseases: such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. However, ES cell technology in mice have proven to be much harder to develop that one had anticipated. And straight out cloning is not working that well either. Besides it is not worth it.

Then nobody wants to be reminded of the huge fiasco that occured with gene therapy in the mid-1990s...

The main problem with fetal stem cells is that the molecular genetics are fluid and stuff changes rapidly--think conception, then development--how fast? 24 hours and you see cells beating...

The other issue is the entire human genome is not that well sequenced and although there is great ideas out there for technology, it MUST be driven by responsible, smart and intelligent science. Not crankin' out random papers with no controls. Those papers SUCK!!! And it can kill people, too...

But quality, Nobel Laureate research takes much time. And since most folks have single nucleotide polymorphisms (genes are spelled differently from one person to another), then it seems that know those haplotypes (combinations) are more beneficial to medical science than just randomly curing some disease for only 2 people...

Besides, stem cells would not work that well with curing Alzheimer's. There is nothing wrong with the neurons themselves, there is crap that builds up on them, called beta amyloid, that causes the disease. It is thought that Alzheimer's is a prion disease--much like mad cow. Instense research is being done to see if that is true...

Re: Re: Stem Cells from aborted fetuses

Quote:

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
Most researchers want to introduce "therapeutic genes" into folks that have diseases: such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. However, ES cell technology in mice have proven to be much harder to develop that one had anticipated. And straight out cloning is not working that well either. Besides it is not worth it.

Then nobody wants to be reminded of the huge fiasco that occured with gene therapy in the mid-1990s...

I worked for 2 summers in a lab doing gene therapy research, primarily with regard to cancer - the research is amazingly promising, and has been for years, but the process is painstaking and brutally slow. Our work with mice showed successes, failures, and really any intermediate you can imagine - as for not worth it, though . . . are you referring specifically to cloning?

Otherwise - we always felt the research, along w/ Stem cell actions, was honestly the best cutting-edge use of funding (which I'm sure you know, is 90% of research, unfortunately).

I'll PM you w/ specifics if you're down, but I'm still bound by my NDA.

Re: Re: Re: Stem Cells from aborted fetuses

Quote:

Originally posted by KSig RC
I worked for 2 summers in a lab doing gene therapy research, primarily with regard to cancer - the research is amazingly promising, and has been for years, but the process is painstaking and brutally slow. Our work with mice showed successes, failures, and really any intermediate you can imagine - as for not worth it, though . . . are you referring specifically to cloning?

Otherwise - we always felt the research, along w/ Stem cell actions, was honestly the best cutting-edge use of funding (which I'm sure you know, is 90% of research, unfortunately).

I'll PM you w/ specifics if you're down, but I'm still bound by my NDA.

I worked on gene therapy and sids patients one summer but that was before Bush so I wonder what happened to all the research there...did they scale back on a lot of gene therapy research??

-Rudey