Embryonic Stem Cell vs. Adult Stem Cell

[Mannyfit75]

I have heard in Catholic Answers Live! that there are more benefit in adult stem cells and more research has proven that it works. Embryonic stem has not proven any proof that it cure diseases. So why aren’t the medical community focus more on adult stem cell? Why is the public misinformed about this issue?

 

[I_A]

What I have heard is more heresy so I don’t know if I should repeat it but processes are much more difficult to patent then genetic lines. If its easier to make money off a genetic copyright than a theraputive treatment. I have heard several instances of companies forcing graduate students and professors from publishing any research they did on the human genome because that particular pharmaceutical company got a copywrite or patent on that chunk of human DNA. Somebody on this board probably knows more than I do though.

 

[Veritas41]

What I have heard is more heresy so I don’t know if I should repeat itbut processes are much more difficult to patent then genetic lines. If its easier to make money off a genetic copyright than a theraputive treatment. I have heard several instances of companies forcing graduate students and professors from publishing any research they did on the human genome because that particular pharmaceutical company got a copywrite or patent on that chunk of human DNA. Somebody on this board probably knows more than I do though.

that is what I have heard as well --it’s possible to patent from an embryonic cell line but not from an adult

 

[HoppityRedux]

If this is being driven by patents, then why are there any adult stem cell products? Why is there any adult stem cell research? We see there are adult stem cell drugs, so I’d suggest the patent idea is wrong.

 

[manualman]

Well, Hoppity your argument is valid only if the drug companies are all run by Darth Vader-esque monsters only interested in money. As you know, reality is more complex. Biotech companies, researchers and executives typically are interested in BOTH making money and providing medical treatments. Adult stem cell research hasn’t had the restrictions that embryonic stem cell research has had, so people have gotten funding and developed cures using it. In no way does that disprove a motive to try to use patents in developing embryonic stem cell ‘treatments.’ Nobody claimed they are ONLY interested in money, so you are reasoning against an argument not made.

I think it is a BAD strategy to argue that embryonic stem cells haven’t yielded any viable treatment and adult stem cells have and therefore, we should put money into the adult kind. Such thinking sets us up for collapse if an effective ‘treatment’ DOES come out. Nobody would argue about ‘effectiveness’ of a therapy developed via kidnapping and killing older kids, would they? Why are we? It’s just a short sighted strategy that will hurt the cause in the long run. And this is going to be a LOOONNNGGG fight, I’m afraid.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Well, Hoppity your argument is valid only if the drug companies are all run by Darth Vader-esque monsters only interested in money. As you know, reality is more complex. Biotech companies, researchers and executives typically are interested in BOTH making money and providing medical treatments. Adult stem cell research hasn’t had the restrictions that embryonic stem cell research has had, so people have gotten funding and developed cures using it. In no way does that disprove a motive to try to use patents in developing embryonic stem cell ‘treatments.’ Nobody claimed they are ONLY interested in money, so you are reasoning against an argument not made.

I think it is a BAD strategy to argue that embryonic stem cells haven’t yielded any viable treatment and adult stem cells have and therefore, we should put money into the adult kind. Such thinking sets us up for collapse if an effective ‘treatment’ DOES come out. Nobody would argue about ‘effectiveness’ of a therapy developed via kidnapping and killing older kids, would they? Why are we? It’s just a short sighted strategy that will hurt the cause in the long run. And this is going to be a LOOONNNGGG fight, I’m afraid.

The notion that patents can only be obtained for one type of stem cell research is wrong. The patent process is the same for both. And I agree that drug companies have a very complex approach to their research. What I dispute is that the difference in progress between adult and embryonic cells is a function of patents. It sounds good, but doesn’t make much economic or social sense.

The burden really isn’t on us to disprove that patents account for the difference. I’d say it rests with those who claim it is true.

Drug companies are shifting their embryonic stem cell research to countries which allow it. They haven’t stopped because of US rules. They are even sending US researchers to those countries. And the environment is becoming more friendly to such research in the US. Missouri just passed a constitutional amendment designed to stop legislators trying to restrict research.

Scientists will say the difference is due to the far greater degree of difficulty in dealing with the embryonic cells. The adult cells are already partially differentiated, so they they do not have to be changed as much as embryonic cells. When asked why they bother with the embryonic cells, the scientists wil say they offer much more potential than do the adult cells. But they will also say the embryonic researchers are learning from the success of the adult research.

I agree the notion that research should be abandoned if it has not yet yeilded results will not sway many minds.

 

[manualman]

I think we might agree that that line of argument is a bad one, but I suspect we differ on whether embryonic stem cell research should happen at all.

Given, that there HAVE been pluripotent (or potentially so) stem cells identified from adult sources (cord blood, etc) and given that there ARE serious ethical questions about the concept of creating a new human being (sperm+egg = new human DNA) in order to use and destroy it, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies with the researcher to show that he cannot acheive the desired outcome via other means.

It does not appear that science has exhausted the universally accepted ethical adult stem cell research out there. Even by utilitarian standards, this seems strange. The mere surmise that fetal stem cells might ‘gitRdone’ faster seems less likely to be the truth than a potential profit motive to a patentable DNA that never got the chance to be considered a human person by civil law. Adult stem cells can’t be copyrighted since their DNA is unquestionably the property of its donor.

 

[HoppityRedux]

I think we might agree that that line of argument is a bad one, but I suspect we differ on whether embryonic stem cell research should happen at all.

Given, that there HAVE been pluripotent (or potentially so) stem cells identified from adult sources (cord blood, etc) and given that there ARE serious ethical questions about the concept of creating a new human being (sperm+egg = new human DNA) in order to use and destroy it, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies with the researcher to show that he cannot acheive the desired outcome via other means.

It does not appear that science has exhausted the universally accepted ethical adult stem cell research out there. Even by utilitarian standards, this seems strange. The mere surmise that fetal stem cells might ‘gitRdone’ faster seems less likely to be the truth than a potential profit motive to a patentable DNA that never got the chance to be considered a human person by civil law. Adult stem cells can’t be copyrighted since their DNA is unquestionably the property of its donor.

We do differ on embryonic stem cells, but I am constrained from offering an argument by moderator restrictions on opposing or showing comtempt for Catholic doctrine. My argument would do both. So I will let that pass.

Some folks have ethical questions about embryonic stem cells. Others don’t. The research is being done by those who don’t, and don’t feel the necessity to prove anything.

Science has not exhausted adult stem cell rsearch. I imagine it will continue for hundreds of years. Many scientists do not see the lack of completion of one thread of research to be a reason to wait on another.

Profit is the motivating force behind many wonderful benefits. This machine I am using right now is the result of the profit motive.

Patents in stem cell research would not be for the DNA, but for the product and processes involved. However, it’s an untested area, but if an individual owns the copyright for his own DNA, then he could also sell or license that same copyright.