Stem Cell Research

[Michele 1]

This topic has come up several times in two of the classes I'm enrolled in (Anatomy and Bio). It's also come up in my Poli Sci class...and the conversations in each of the classes have got me wondering.

What, exactly, does stem cell research mean to you? Without getting into the whole Michael J. Fox/Limbaugh debate (which is being beaten to death on a different thread), what do you think stem cell research is? I've heard conflicting information and opinions about it. It's this or it's that, it's valuable because of that or the other thing, it's against morals and ethics of some people (including the hippocratic oath and religions [some]), it's immoral to not research because of the good it will do...et cetera.

So I was wondering what you all thought it was?

I've got to go to class, but I'll be back later on. I'm looking forward to reading your opinions and your reasons for believing as you do about it.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kbordson 8]

Interesting topic. I've tried to reply to this twice now. It's hard to really express my thoughts on this topic but I will try.

The first comment that I will make is that KNOWLEDGE is neither good nor evil. How it is obtained and its application can be - but not the knowledge itself.

Genetics - I find it facinating. So much information, so compact, so "unchangeable" yet dynamic... Mendel was an inspiration to those who study details. Watson, Crick, Franklin and Wilkins were true geniuses.

"Stem Cell Research" -Basic question... What does this gene do? What CAN this gene do? Why use pluripotent cell? Because once the cell differentiates then certain alleles are switched off. How do we turn them back on? What signals them to deactivate? We don't know near as much as we would like to... Should we use a fetus or embryonic? I believe No. I personally don't know when the spirit becomes a person, but I would not want to experiment on a soul that should be treated with respect. What can be used? Can we use fetal cells or embryonic cells? Yes. This might seem like a contradiction or even splitting hairs... but you can do a cell reduction of an embryo and not have any noted defect in the outcome of the fetus/child/person. This has been preformed for many years in reproductive endocrinology clinics. It allow the doctor to examine the chromosomes of an embryo to determine if it has any genetic defect that the parents are trying to prevent. So, with the frozen embryos, the ones destined to be destroyed.... one of the cells could be harvested from those without impacting the whole. Additionally there have been some undifferentiated cells found in umbilical blood. Adult stem cell research has some merit, but the debates seem to vary about how far this research can go.

I think stem cell research is important. I think the knowledge will greatly impact medicine in the next 20-30 years.... but the ethics surrounding it will have to be decided.


Finally - I found that this site goes over the time frames of stem cell research.

[Gawain 0]

To me, it means that one day, an amputee may be able to get a new leg. I know this is waaaay distant future, but I know that's one possibility.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Athomeonarock 0]

I got my undergrad degree in genetics, So i am a little biased. But, what it boils down to for me , is a ball of cells (about 64 to a few hundred) worth the pain and suffering of a person with a fully developed nervous system( and more importantly a developed life with family and such)?

It is unfortunate we cant use adult stem cells, but they are already differentiated(they are on the road to what there are going to be and well past the point of no return)

I know many believe it is the destruction of life, but it remains a ball of cells with potential. In a tube, it will never grow to a human. The maturation in a mother is essential, and there is more to life than the initial chemical reaction. It is sad, but i think pragmatically, the suffering person wins over the cells

We are a few years away from practical applications, but they will be here. stem cells are the foundation that built you, with the right manipulation, they can repair you.

Also on a side note, Fertilisation clinics destroy the extra embryos fairly often, why not use those instead of autoclaving them?

Anyway, thats my opinion, I dont know how i got into this forum, just wanted to read about my new hobby ( if ican find some money and time)

Quote

• Quote

[sundevil777 102]

I don't think you can ask us about the morality of it without bringing up the Michael Fox issue. You would think that the evil Repubs were not allowing any research at all. Michael Fox and others should be ashamed for intentionally misleading and manipulating public opinion, using sympathy for a celebrity, as he did with that political campaign ad.

What I think is quite clear is that advocates of stem cell research should stop implying that if only the limited ban on federal funding were lifted, that Christopher Reeve would have walked, or Michael Fox would be cured.

I heard on NPR that researchers are indicating that it may not be so important anymore to use embryonic stem cells, so the federal funding issue may be moot.

If you don't believe in a soul, there is no moral issue, and anyone that disagrees is a religious nut with no compassion for those afflicted with diseases.

If you do believe in a soul, the moral choice is not as easy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Michele 1]

Yes, Mendel was amazing; to read some of his studies and see intense detail is amazing. The whole genetics field is amazing - what these little codes do, direct, and how they know what they are is fascinating to me.

I agree with you that the knowledge of something is neutral, neither good nor bad. The difficulty arises when the proverbial pandora's box gets opened - the ethical dilemmas and the use of that knowledge is a concern, and one which, at least in this topic, needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

My understanding of early embryology is very limited; my understanding of genetics even more so. But from what I understand, the pluripotent cells are only viable (or pluripotent) until gastrulation, or thereabouts. Once the inner cell mass is created, the ecto/meso/endo derms are created, and start the whole differentiation thing starts, right? So, a woman won't even know she's pregnant until after that happens, because that happens within the first week of fertilization. (Please correct me if I'm wrong - as I said, my understanding is exceedingly limited.)

So if that's the case, it's not abortion that is the source of stem/pluripotent cells; rather, it is the created conceptus/embryo that is involved. I understand the cell reduction aspect - the removal of a few cells from the 3-5 day old embryo - and that it doesn't appear to be a problem whatsoever; the inner cell mass just simply says "whoops, I need a few cells more over here" and make them because it still hasn't begun differentiating. Once the differentiating happens, however, this becomes impossible to use because now you only have liver cells, brain cells, bone cells, et cetera.

If the above is true, then the only way stem cell research could happen is creation of an embryo in a petri dish, prior to implantation in a womb.

And thus begins the ethical dilemma. Does one create the potential life, simply to harvest cells? Does one cell reduce and use those cells to study and research with? What happens to the reduced-cell embryo? And don't those studies show that only after a certain amount of time they become unviable (I think it's 4 generations of study, but I'm not sure how they count the generations...). So soon the stem cells we have on record will be useless to us for study. But what makes them useless?

Does a woman give her eggs for this? Does a man give his sperm? Or do they sell them? Do couples give their unimplanted viable embryos for this, knowing that they won't want them in the future? Does one parent have the right to veto that donation?

And then, if you're of a mind to believe that a soul is involved, are you depriving the soul of a body? Depriving that soul of a chance at life? Those are the questions I wrestle with, along with the other ones above.

While it is true that there is a huge misunderstanding about funding for cell research, and the truth (as I understand it) is that stem cell research is continuing in private venues v. being publicly funded, what are the consequences of that? I'm not sure that I want private corporations being able to "patent" the procedure for, say, regrowth of limbs or organs, because then the knowledge is given only to a select few who can afford it, and it is not available to the public at large. Or they can decide to whom they provide the procedure, at their descretion only, because they own the information and thus can control it. This sort of knowledge in private hands is far more problematic than in public universities, hospitals, and research labs. Without oversight, there could easily be uses developed that are negative and horrific...and elitist.

But then again, I don't know if I want my tax dollars to go towards something that I feel might be ethically and morally an issue...and I don't know that I trust the government with this information enough to be the sole proprietor, if you will, of it, either.

Thanks for all the replies; I look forward to continuing the discussion, and learning more of what people believe and why they believe it. As you can see from the above, I have many questions still unanswered, and can't decide if I'm for or against stem cells until I understand the ramifications of the issue more fully. I don't know that we will ever know the full ramifications, honestly, until they happen...but for those we can foresee, that's the consideration I have.

(And yes, Rush, we can discuss it without MJF and RL involved...and I'd appreciate it if you'd try. The issues go far beyond two entertainers at election time. Far beyond. Thanks!
Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[freethefly 6]

Stem cells are, from all that I have read, the starting point of all cells. They can be used as a type of repair kit for the body. Theory is that they have no limit to the times that they can devide.
When a stem cell divides it has the ability to become a specialized cell which holds the key to repair the body. The type of cell that they can turn into is any cell in the body and even divide into another stem cell.
For myself the potential of this research is a cure for AIDS. Maybe not in my life time which is getting extremely short but for the many newly infected, those who will become infected and those with high T-cell counts and low to non detectable viral loads. Embyonic stem cells seemingly have the highest potential as they have been shown to divide and produce t-cells. If not a cure but then a way to replenish the bodies immune system of these important cells, the cells your body use to fight illness, until there is a cure.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[going4alob 0]

I think we have a lot to learn from other organisms about mechanisms that regulate cell differentiation. Take the salamander for example, an organism that can re-grow new limbs by reactivating the embryonic regeneration response, a process that is lost by mammals in early embryogenesis. This regeneration is achieved by fibroblast dedifferentiation giving rise to blastema cells. The whole process of dedifferentiation is regulated by soluble growth factors as well as cell-cell interactions in the surrounding tissue. I personnally think that there are some good examples in the literature if progress being made in which adult somatic stem cells may be induced to dedifferentiate via a process of nuclear reprogramming. This can currently be achieved through cell fusion or by transplantation of endogenous bone marrow derived stem cells into defective tissues. At the end of the day, potential therapeutic effects of stem cell research does not just lie in our ability to manipulate embyonically derived stem cells.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Without oversight, there could easily be uses developed that are negative and horrific...and elitist.

Is there any branch of science for which this statement does not hold true?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I don't think you can ask us about the morality of it without bringing up the Michael Fox issue. You would think that the evil Repubs were not allowing any research at all. Michael Fox and others should be ashamed for intentionally misleading and manipulating public opinion, using sympathy for a celebrity, as he did with that political campaign ad.

nah, I rather have that happen than people intentionally misleading and manipulating public opinion, using fear, for ego and financial gain. Both though are completely off topic.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I don't think you can ask us about the morality of it without bringing up the Michael Fox issue. You would think that the evil Repubs were not allowing any research at all. Michael Fox and others should be ashamed for intentionally misleading and manipulating public opinion, using sympathy for a celebrity, as he did with that political campaign ad.

This whole issue is the USA's loss and Canada's gain since we're not afraid to spend money on Stem Cell research (we are attracting the best of the best in this field from around the world into our research institutions) while your "Bible Thumping" GWB prez sits back and claims how immoral Stem Cell research is. It's refreshing to know that the most technologically advance society has decided to set the clock back on scientific research and why? Because their leader is a religious zealot. The USA needs new blood on both sides of your political fence as both of your parties stink.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[NCclimber 0]

I may be wrong, but more money is being spent on stem cell research in the US than any other country.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I may be wrong, but more money is being spent on stem cell research in the US than any other country.

It's not Federal money. Thus, patents are going to happening, and subsequent applications are going to cost an arm and a leg.

We are all engines of karma

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

In 2005 the NIH funded $607 million worth of stem cell research

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

In 2005 the NIH funded $607 million worth of stem cell research

Isn't that using existing stem cells? My understanding is much more money is being spent on new stem cell research beyond the Federal lines.

We are all engines of karma

[kallend 2,026]

Decisions on stem cell research, like all other scientific research, should be left to the self-correcting peer-review process. I am strongly against both research set-asides and research bans based on politics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Decisions on stem cell research, like all other scientific research, should be left to the self-correcting peer-review process. I am strongly against both research set-asides and research bans based on politics.

Agreed. Otherwise, we might still be living in mud huts. (...If God had meant for us to have roofs over our heads, we would have been born with them...)

We are all engines of karma

[Michele 1]

Quote

This whole issue is the USA's loss and Canada's gain since we're not afraid to spend money on Stem Cell research (we are attracting the best of the best in this field from around the world into our research institutions) while your "Bible Thumping" GWB prez sits back and claims how immoral Stem Cell research is. It's refreshing to know that the most technologically advance society has decided to set the clock back on scientific research and why? Because their leader is a religious zealot. The USA needs new blood on both sides of your political fence as both of your parties stink.

So, you don't believe there are any moral or ethical issues with pluripotent stem cell research? If not, why not, and if so, why?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I think we have a lot to learn from other organisms about mechanisms that regulate cell differentiation. Take the salamander for example, an organism that can re-grow new limbs by reactivating the embryonic regeneration response, a process that is lost by mammals in early embryogenesis. This regeneration is achieved by fibroblast dedifferentiation giving rise to blastema cells. The whole process of dedifferentiation is regulated by soluble growth factors as well as cell-cell interactions in the surrounding tissue. I personnally think that there are some good examples in the literature if progress being made in which adult somatic stem cells may be induced to dedifferentiate via a process of nuclear reprogramming. This can currently be achieved through cell fusion or by transplantation of endogenous bone marrow derived stem cells into defective tissues. At the end of the day, potential therapeutic effects of stem cell research does not just lie in our ability to manipulate embyonically derived stem cells.

In the '70s, I saw in the World Book Encyclopedia (I still have it) how a frog (they don't regenerate normally) was made to grow back an amputated leg by using electrical stimulation. They had studied the electric field of salamanders for their experiments.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

It is unfortunate we cant use adult stem cells, but they are already differentiated(they are on the road to what there are going to be and well past the point of no return)

The latest news, however is that it isn't a point of no return. I heard a story about this on NPR just a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately for liberals, this doesn't help their agenda of attacking Bush.

Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is not banned. It is limited to the existing lines at the time.

Is there evidence that the existing lines are not sufficient? If not, then there should be no issue.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Vyxen 0]

Some clarifying information:

4 kinds:
Embryonic Stem cells - Only totipotent stem cells, and some pluripotent
Hematopoetic Stem Cells - Adult, multipotent
Umbilical Stem Cells - multipotent
Bone Marrow stem cells - Adult, multipotent

Cells age. The older a person gets, the older their cells get. To harvest morrow cells is difficult (very few stem cells per amount of marrow) and the cells are already less useful from age. Same with hematopoetic cells.

Umbilicle stem cells are useful, but still only multipotent.

Now, the big one: Embryonic Stem Cells.
The totipotent stem cells must be harvested around day 4 or 5 after fertilization (sperm + egg). One will find 8 cells at this stage.

8.

After this stage and through gastrulation (day 15 - 3ish weeks) one can still harvest pluripotent cells, but not totipotent.

There are no fetal stem cells (in reply to a previous post). The fetal period begins at week 8 of development. At this point all organs have developed, all cells are differentiated.

With ESCs needing to be harvested 4 days after fertilization it would be difficult to tie this to an abortion issue. A woman would not know she is pregnant yet. However, it still becomes a right to life issue for those who believe life begins at sperm + egg.

Deffinitions:
Totipotent - totally potent. Can become any other cell in the body.
Pluripotent - can become many cell types
Multipotent - can become like cells (marrow stem cells lead to a range of blood cells...but not a liver cell)
And unipotent.

My opinion:
Just as I do not believe that when a person dies, their dead body-mass is "them" I do not believe that 8 single cells are "them" either. The cells are potential to a human, just as a egg is potential and sperm is potential. Many things must go right for in 40 weeks, a human to exist. (However, it is not my belief that it takes until birth for the person or soul or whatever you call it, to exist. I have yet to come to term with when this occurs).

It is unknown how many fertilized eggs are shed from a woman without being carried to term since research is showing it can happen so early that a woman would not even know. Some research shows that many of us start as twins, and one of the zygotes perishes before the doctor can even know. It is natural selection processes like these that allow me to understand and accept the use of stem cells for the greater good.

That is all.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

So, you don't believe there are any moral or ethical issues with pluripotent stem cell research? If not, why not, and if so, why?

I'm not Canuck, but no - I see no moral issues with it. Its not a person, its just a group of cells with potential. Should we feel outraged for every sperm and egg that never meet up? After all, they have the potential to be people, they just never made it either.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

So, you don't believe there are any moral or ethical issues with pluripotent stem cell research? If not, why not, and if so, why?

I'm not Canuck, but no - I see no moral issues with it. Its not a person, its just a group of cells with potential. Should we feel outraged for every sperm and egg that never meet up? After all, they have the potential to be people, they just never made it either.

But...
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

I guess I should stop killing kittens then.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Michele 1]

Quote

After all, they have the potential to be people, they just never made it either.

No, actually they don't. A sperm or ovum has only 1/2 of the chromosomes needed to produce a person, so no, without the balance of chromosomes (i.e the joining of the two gametes) there is no potential. Once fertilization occurs, there is the potential for a person. 'Til then, it's just a clump of DNA - only half of what's needed.

I understand your position, though. If there is no God, then there is no soul. If there is no soul, then why concern oneself with it in an ethical/moral sense? I don't agree, but I understand.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~