Embryonic Stem Cells - A Moot Point

[tabsie3210]

Recent developments in the realm of science have given rise to something nobody thought would be possible - embryonic stem cells without an embryo.

Seems that scientists have been able to turn skin cells into embryonic stem cells. Like, the actual cells that come out of the tiniest human babies.

So, researchers who demand embryonic cells to work with (which makes no sense to me because adult stem cell research has yielded more results, but eh) can do so without ticking off us pro-lifers. They get what they want, no babies are harmed in the making of this product.

So… why do people want the ban lifted on embryonic stem cells that originate from minature babies if doing research on embryos is no longer necessary? Isn’t the point moot?

 

[Newbie2]

Recent developments in the realm of science have given rise to something nobody thought would be possible - embryonic stem cells without an embryo.

Seems that scientists have been able to turn skin cells into embryonic stem cells. Like, the actual cells that come out of the tiniest human babies.

So, researchers who demand embryonic cells to work with (which makes no sense to me because adult stem cell research has yielded more results, but eh) can do so without ticking off us pro-lifers. They get what they want, no babies are harmed in the making of this product.

So… why do people want the ban lifted on embryonic stem cells that originate from minature babies if doing research on embryos is no longer necessary? Isn’t the point moot?

Bull-oney. If the cells don’t come from an embryo, they aren’t “embryonic stem cells”. The argument is a non sequitur.

It should be a moot point, assuming that adult stem cells can be used in all the ways that cells derived from embyros, “embryonic stem cells” could be used…and it appears that adult stem cells hold the most current and future promise.

What is at stake here is the slippery slope. If they can use 16 or 32 cell embryos, why not blastocysts? Why not 1 month old embryos? Why not abort babies for the express purpose of using their stem cells?

Only the law stands in the way, and that’s starting to fall apart, bit by bit.

 

[1ke]

People want to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research because they want to experiment on embryos.

There are many who will not accept skin cells, adult stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells, or any cells but those from embryos.

There is a lot of money involved in this research. Don’t think for a minute that these researchers are a bunch of Albert Sweitzers. These companies are in it for the money.

 

[Danny_OC]

These are great advances in science, but unfortunately I do not think they will solve our problems. There will always be these horribly immoral means of “advancing science,” and the only reliable way to fight them is to do away with the philosophy that says it is ok, not just find alternative experiments that are morally sound.

 

[tabsie3210]

Newbie 2 -

From the website Secondhand Smoke by Wesley J. Smith

wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/11/turning-lead-into-gold-more-on-big-stem.html

There are a lot of stories out about the big breakthrough, although as I suspected the energy of excitement is missing in many media reports. Still, the news is all over the place. Here’s a small sampling:

• Los Angeles Times:

Human skin cells can be reprogrammed to behave almost exactly like embryonic stem cells, a discovery that provides a road map for creating personalized biological repair kits without ethical strings attached, scientists reported today.

Here’s the link to that story:

articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/21/science/sci-stemcells21

• Wall Street Journal Online:

In the quest to treat difficult diseases, researchers have created human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos or using hard-to-get eggs. The technique may prove to be easier, cheaper, and more ethically appealing than an alternative approach that requires cloning.

Here’s a link to that story:

online.wsj.com/article/SB119556606750999184.html

My pal Joseph Bottum at the First Things Blog:

…we are about to witness something like victory in the fight over embryonic stem cells. And that will open a nest of interesting questions, beginning with this one: All those editorialists and columnists who have, over the past ten years, howled and howled about Luddites and religious fanatics thwarting science and frustrating medicine–were they really interested in technology and health, or were they just using all that as a handy stick with which to whack their political opponents?..The people who turn out actually to have believed in the power of science are the pro-lifers–the ones who said that a moral roadblock is not, in point of fact, an outrageous hindrance, for scientists will always find another, less-objectionable way to achieve their goals.

And a link to this this one:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=904

• The Associated Press:
  Scientists have made ordinary human skin cells take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells, a startling breakthrough that might someday deliver the medical payoffs of embryo cloning without the controversy.

And this one:
edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Researchers announced on Tuesday that they had found a way to make powerful human embryonic stem cells without using cloning technology and without making a human embryo.

And this:
reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN20601344

Here’s what Mr. Smith had to say at the end of that blog:

This early work will be multiplied now as, in the tradition of science, many other researchers jump in to perfect the technique. Whether these cells will be used directly in therapies remains an open issue–remember the tumors!–but there is no question that many of the basic research goals scientists wanted from pluripotent stem cells can now be achieved, and more easily since ESCR remains a difficult process and human cloning has not yet been done.

Now, with adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells moving ahead in human trials, along with other areas of ethical biotechnology we often discuss here at SHS, regenerative medicine looks to be both beneficial and ethical. Who could ask for anything more?

No, Newbie2, it is not baloney. Embryonic stem cells are called pluripotent cells - cells that have not been “assigned” a duty and will change according to the information they’re provided, usually by the baby’s DNA, but they can be stimulated by outside sources. For example, embryonic stem cells have been successfully turned into blood cells of all blood types.

The cells that were created from skin cells were embryonic in that they share the exact same characterisits and are also pluripotent. The big deal about embryonic stem cells is that they are pluripotent: they can turn into darn near any cell if they’re stimulated the right way.

Adult stem cells are either unipotent (they can only produce one kind of cell, but unlike regular cells they are capable of self-renewal) or multipotent (they can produce cells from one kind of family of cells: hematopoietic stem cells can only turn into red blood cells, white blood cells, platlets). The only adult stem cells that are pluripotent that I know of personally are the ones taken from umbilical cord blood, but according to the literature that I’ve read, cord blood cells and embryonic stem cells aren’t identical, and for some reason embryonic cells are preferred by scientists.

The altered skin cells are more closely aligned to embryonic stem cells than to cord blood cells. Hence, they are lumped into the “embryonic stem cell” classification.

Wesley J. Smith is a lawyer who is pro-life, anti-euthanasia, and pro-human exceptionalism. He reports on alternatives to embryonic stem cell research because he believes that it is a crime against humanity, and he is well respected in many circles because, while he does show a lot of support for the Catholic Church, he keeps all of his arguments out of the realm of religion and is strictly neutral on the subject whenever he posts. (Of course, he’s also been hosted on Catholic radio networks because of his strong support for our anti-abortion / anti-euthanasia policies.)

I highly recommend him to anyone who wants to see a good debate. He’s very conservative, thoughtful, and intellgient, and he’s also good friends with my favorite author, Dean Koontz (who is a devout Catholic!).

 

[Newbie2]

Thanks for the primer for those who don’t understand the difference; I had all that back in Clinical Pathology.

What I was referring to was the nomenclature; using “embryonic” and “adult” stem cells as classifications. If it comes from an embryo, it’s an embyonic stem cell. If it comes from an adult, it’s an adult stem cell. Calling altered adult stem cells “embryonic” is misleading; most people, and I say this charitably, don’t understand the significance between adult origin stem cells and embryonic stem cells as far as their potential.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that adult stem cells can be modified to become pluripotent…but I’m totally against stirring up already muddied waters.

What’s likely to happen if we start referring to such adult-origin stem cells as “embryonic” is that opponents of embryonic-origin stem cells will say “See…those (Catholics and others) are against ANY use of stem cells to cure these horrible diseases!”. They will purpopsefully obfuscate the difference in order to secure the “right” to use embryonic-origin cells, which as we all know means the destruction of an innocent life.

That’s where the baloney comes in.

 

[tabsie3210]

Mrk. I see now. I’ve been told off a few time on Wesley’s blog because there are some who subscribe to it just to argue with the pro-lifers. And the argument that we’ve been using is that it’s no longer necessary to cut up embryos because there are viable alternatives, and if one insists that only embryonic stem cells can CURE CURE CURE everything, well, here ya go, there’s a cell that’s pretty darn close, and no baby killing.

I misunderstood your perspective. The phrase, “Bull-ony” came off as an attack on my statement that a replacement that was just as good as embryonic stem cells had come about. Better, actually, since no babies are killed in the process.

Unfortunately, I could also give you plenty of links to objectors on Wesley’s blog who think that the only salvation in the world for disease will come from killing embryos who also said “baloney” when confronted with this information. There are plenty of people out there who don’t bother to read up on technology and bioethics.

“It doesn’t come from an embryo, so it won’t be as good. Only real embroyinc stem cells will offer any cures!”

This is a very emotional subject. I’m sorry I misunderstood you - I’m very much against any kind of embryonic stem cell research because I am very pro-life. I can tell you are, too, which is why I was very hurt by what I saw as an attack on my statement. I couldn’t see why you were telling me I was a liar (which is how it looked to me) when at the end of your spiel you looked like you and I were on the same side.

Thank you for clearing everything up in your reply. I do feel a lot better about it, and on closer thought, I agree that it is important to stress the success of adult stem cell use vs. embryonic stem cell use, and not to confuse the two of them. I do think, though, that people ought to know that viable alternatives exist and that they fill the exact same role as the cells they insist are going to fix everything. People need to be aware that it doesn’t have to come from an embryo to do the job. That’s why I respectfully disagree that the nomenclature must be completely different.

People associate embryonic stem cells with what they do, rather than where they come from. Big Biotech twists words regularly to say that they’ve come up with Embryonic Stem Cells that don’t harm embryos, when all they’re doing is word play, not produced results that don’t kill babies. But the public eats it up because they think only about what the cells can do.

So, I say we should agree to disagree, since in the long run, we both have the same agenda - convince people not to perform mutilations of the tiniest babies for fun and profit. No joke, I seriously think that really is the reason scientists perform ESC experiments.

 

[Newbie2]

No problemo…actually I thought about going back and rephrasing what I wrote to be more clear; when I re-read it, I wasn’t clear about where I was aiming the baloney.

My bad, not yours.

We’re on the same page, Bro.

 

[Doc2be]

Just to clarify from what I have been taught in Medical School…the adult stem cells that you are speaking of are called iPS cells or Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. That should clear up the Embryonic vs. adult thing. Just call them induced cells.

Just to add some more clarification these are made from adult stem cells which are placed in a cocktail of Transcription factors and other proteins which causes them to revert back to a pluripotent state.

Unfortunately, “scientists” claim that they are not as “good” as ES cells. There are two articles below that are just a look at what is currently coming out about iPS cells. The first quote really talks about one of the issues many opponents to iPS cells have; The creation of them is inefficient and expensive. Well, we are working on that. And the first article talks about some of those advances. Like working with hair stem cells or skin stem cells.

The second article is promising because in order to get the Adult stem cells to express the right stuff to become iPS cells we have to infect them with viruses from the same class as HIV. Obviously you can’t use cells infected with HIV-like viruses…they do not cause harm but there is potential. No one likes potential harm. But scientists are figuring out how to do it without retroviral vectors.

Some other key things about iPS cells is that they are matched perfectly to the patient…kids who suffer from SCIDs (bubble-boy) can get bone marrow transplants that are matches to them without having a twin. This could revolutionize the Bone marrow transplant or Hematopoeitic Stem Cell Transplant procedure. You would no longer have to worry about the new cells attacking the body(Graft vs. Host Disease) or anything like that because it would be as if the cells are from the body, because they are. You can’t get that with ES cells. Some scientists just like to kill, I think.

I hope I have explained something and have not made it worse. If you have any questions I will do my best to answer them. have a good one!

here is some of the promising current research I just looked up.

Keratinocyte-derived iPS (KiPS) cells appear indistinguishable from human embryonic stem cells in colony morphology, growth properties, expression of pluripotency-associated transcription factors and surface markers, global gene expression profiles and differentiation potential in vitro and in vivo. To underscore the efficiency and practicability of this technology, we generated KiPS cells from single adult human hairs. Our findings provide an experimental model for investigating the bases of cellular reprogramming and highlight potential advantages of using keratinocytes to generate patient-specific iPS cells.

from Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Nov;26(11):1276-84. Epub 2008 Oct 17

Pluripotent stem cells have been generated from mouse and human somatic cells by viral expression of the transcription factors Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc. A major limitation of this technology is the use of potentially harmful genome-integrating viruses. We generated mouse induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells from fibroblasts and liver cells by using nonintegrating adenoviruses transiently expressing Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc. These adenoviral iPS (adeno-iPS) cells show DNA demethylation characteristic of reprogrammed cells, express endogenous pluripotency genes, form teratomas, and contribute to multiple tissues, including the germ line, in chimeric mice. Our results provide strong evidence that insertional mutagenesis is not required for in vitro reprogramming. Adenoviral reprogramming may provide an improved method for generating and studying patient-specific stem cells and for comparing embryonic stem cells and iPS cells.

From Science. 2008 Nov 7;322(5903):945-9. Epub 2008 Sep 25.

 

[tabsie3210]

Newbie 2 -

You are very sweet, thank you, and I’m a Sis. < curtsie > But we’re on the same page, and I’m glad we worked that out. < grin >

Doc2be -

Another problem that I read about with using ESC therapy instead of iPS (yay! we have terminology!) is that iPS doesn’t show the same tendency to grow out of control and create turmors, whereas ESCs have caused tumors in laboratory rats. I agree, I do think that they just like to kill. Either that, or they’re trying to desensitize the rest of humanity so that everyone will start accepting “harvestable clones,” or babies grown just for harvesting organs. Blah… people can be scummy sometimes.

 

[Newbie2]

My bad again!

:hug1:

 

[AgingCatholic]

Unfortunately, “scientists” claim that they are not as “good” as ES cells. There are two articles below that are just a look at what is currently coming out about iPS cells. The first quote really talks about one of the issues many opponents to iPS cells have; The creation of them is inefficient and expensive. Well, we are working on that. And the first article talks about some of those advances. Like working with hair stem cells or skin stem cells.

You may want to consider using the quotes around scientist, it isn’t as clearly a demarkation of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ science as we would sometimes like to believe.

For those who might still be confused, the big distinction between embryonic stem cells and adult, or somatic, stem cells is that embryonic stems appear to be able to be “differentiated”, or converted, into any kind of cell. Somatic stem cells are already quasi specialized. That is, we can only (at least up to now) differentiate them into specific kinds of cells from the organs where we find them.

It is important to understand that adult stem cell research isn’t new. It has been going on for 40 years, since the discovery of hematopoietic stems cells in bone marrow. Those cells can form the different types of blood cells in the body. But our understanding of differentiation and how to direct it stalled.

Both the articles you cited are potentially exciting (the second, IMO, more so), but both research efforts are due, in part, to what has been learned from embryonic stem cell research. In other words, if it weren’t for the scientists you disdain, the science you approve of would almost certainly not currently exist.

Since there is a connection, it seems disengenous to create an arbitrary moral boundary. Much of what you will learn on your path to becoming a doctor (should you complete it) is knowledge that was born through the horrible suffering of human beings. For better or worse, you will be in the intellectual debt of torturers. Since any good you do will still be tied to their evil, it would probably be a good idea not to become too confident in your own morality.

 

[Doc2be]

You may want to consider using the quotes around scientist, it isn’t as clearly a demarkation of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ science as we would sometimes like to believe.

For those who might still be confused, the big distinction between embryonic stem cells and adult, or somatic, stem cells is that embryonic stems appear to be able to be “differentiated”, or converted, into any kind of cell. Somatic stem cells are already quasi specialized. That is, we can only (at least up to now) differentiate them into specific kinds of cells from the organs where we find them.

It is important to understand that adult stem cell research isn’t new. It has been going on for 40 years, since the discovery of hematopoietic stems cells in bone marrow. Those cells can form the different types of blood cells in the body. But our understanding of differentiation and how to direct it stalled.

Both the articles you cited are potentially exciting (the second, IMO, more so), but both research efforts are due, in part, to what has been learned from embryonic stem cell research. In other words, if it weren’t for the scientists you disdain, the science you approve of would almost certainly not currently exist.

Since there is a connection, it seems disengenous to create an arbitrary moral boundary. Much of what you will learn on your path to becoming a doctor (should you complete it) is knowledge that was born through the horrible suffering of human beings. For better or worse, you will be in the intellectual debt of torturers. Since any good you do will still be tied to their evil, it would probably be a good idea not to become too confident in your own morality.

First of all AgingCatholic I would like to point out that we are not just talking about Adult Stem cells…these are adults stem cells that have been induced to become almost exactly like ES cells…they can become just about anything and they do not involve the direct killing of babies.

I agree that I should never become confident in my own morality but to tell me that because I use the knowledge gained from the sacrifices of others makes me complicit in those acts is just narrow minded (no offense). I did not sanction those deaths and I do not support those deaths at this time or in the future. If I gain knowledge through second or third or fourth hand means, I am morally separate. If I actively vote/work for the end of IVF embryos being donated to research or abortions for research then I am doing what I can with what I have been given. To try and make a young doctor-in-training already struggling with the moral evils of a profession think for even one second he/she is morally complicit to torture and killing is absurd and ridiculous. Maybe I say this so as to protect what morality I can keep, but I disagree with you.

So, if I read your response correctly, you are saying that since I gain knowledge of anatomy which unfortunately was attained from the desecration of dead bodies or of sacrificed Christians under Roman rule I am complicit with those persecutions. To neglect that knowledge out of some moral righteousness does more harm to the sacrifice they underwent than good. I do not support ES cell research, I vote that way and I stick to my guns. But I am thankful (albeit sad) for the sacrifice that so many children have made. I do not condone it, I want to make that clear. By supporting research such as iPS cells, I support a giant step towards relieving the suffering of so many unborn.

What should we do with our knowledge of vaccines and diseases that has been gained from ESC research? Just throw it out? I understand it comes with a heavy burden, but do not try to make people feel as if when they use that knowledge it is almost as bad as if they killed the embryo themselves. Maybe I took your comments in the wrong way, but my response comes from my understanding of what you meant.

God Bless.

 

[christcnection1]

What is at stake here is the slippery slope. If they can use 16 or 32 cell embryos, why not blastocysts? Why not 1 month old embryos? Why not abort babies for the express purpose of using their stem cells?

Only the law stands in the way, and that’s starting to fall apart, bit by bit.

And why not use perfectly healthy babies two months after they were born? At least the mother will be completely safe from harm.

Indeed, this is all a slippery slope.

Frankly, I’m surprised not more “pro-choice” supporters advocate this. I’m sure many would if they believed the public was ready for it.

 

[Newbie2]

And why not use perfectly healthy babies two months after they were born? At least the mother will be completely safe from harm.

Indeed, this is all a slippery slope.

Frankly, I’m surprised not more “pro-choice” supporters advocate this. I’m sure many would if they believed the public was ready for it.

Exactomundo. Like the frog in the pot of water on the stove…turn the heat up a wee bit at a time, and before he knows it, the frog is unaware he’s being boiled for supper.

What’s to stop a woman from getting an abortion, for instance, from being talked into carrying that baby for a month or two extra, where the child’s organs have developed a bit further and…maybe…are a bit more suitable for transplant material.

How about we do the abortion for free, Miss, or say, how about we pay YOU for waiting just another month or so.

 

[christcnection1]

Exactomundo. Like the frog in the pot of water on the stove…turn the heat up a wee bit at a time, and before he knows it, the frog is unaware he’s being boiled for supper.

What’s to stop a woman from getting an abortion, for instance, from being talked into carrying that baby for a month or two extra, where the child’s organs have developed a bit further and…maybe…are a bit more suitable for transplant material.

How about we do the abortion for free, Miss, or say, how about we pay YOU for waiting just another month or so.

Very scary… and I’m sure some “pro-choicers” think this could never happen. The fact is similar atrocities have happened in some cultures that were supposed to be “sophisticated” or “educated.”

There is already too much heat in the pot, much less the kitchen. We don’t need the house to burn down; we need more heroic fire fighters.

 

[Mimi]

What’s to stop a woman from getting an abortion, for instance, from being talked into carrying that baby for a month or two extra, where the child’s organs have developed a bit further and…maybe…are a bit more suitable for transplant material.

How about we do the abortion for free, Miss, or say, how about we pay YOU for waiting just another month or so.

What makes you think at least some doctors haven’t done this already (with a willing wife)? I know – e-e-e-w-w!!! and :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

I can imagine in Russia, where the average is 9 abortions per woman, there isn’t much of a shortage of material; horrifying to think of it, even.

Pray for mercy, especially those in most need!
Mimi