Stem cells...AGAIN!

Remove all ads!

Wasn't sure whether this should go in the AoDA or here but since opposition to stem cell research comes overwhelmingly from religious arguments, i decided here.

I was watching TV today when I came upon PBS adn something about Type 1 diabetes. Since I am one of the afflicted, I stopped to see what was going on.
It was actually a program explaining the ins adn outs, facts and fallacies about the whole stem cell/cloning debate but this one actually had some new and insightful stuff.
I am not going to go over every single detail(as enthralling as these details were) but I DO want to bring up something Doug Melton(of The Harvard Stem Cell Research Center) said in response to the Catholic(RCC mainly) argument that "Life begins at conception.":

(Paraphrased)" For me it is not about when life begins but rather when personhood begins. IF I am sitting in a clinic with my child(he has two young children who both have diabetes) and the fire alarm goes off, I have a choice:

Grab my son and run out of there OR grab a freezer full of thousands of embryonic stem cells.

I will grab my son."


So...time for the "put your money where your mouth is" challenge. What would YOU do in such a hypothetical? Grab your 9 or 10 year old son/daughter OR grab that freezer/icebox full of embryonic stem cells(that represent THOUSANDS of "lives")?
Hell, it doesn't even have to be your child! Let's just say it is a 9 year old boy or girl who, for whatever reason will not be able to escape on his/her own. Do you save the child or the stem cells?

Thye funny thing is that, for all the hyperbole about life beginning at conception, the group of stem cells(a "blastison"? I don't know how to spell the word.) has NO potential to become a person. NONE!

UNLESS it is placed into a woman's uterus, at which point it becomes a whole nother ball of wax altogether. It's a lot like the difference between the eggs you eat for breakfast and the eggs the hen is sitting on in the chicken coop which are due to hatch into new chicks in a week.
I know of NO catholics/conservative Christians who refuse to eat eggs on religious grounds.

And you can't play the "chickens are not humans(and so are worth less as life forms)" card. You would not go out and "murder" a helpless chicken(I am not talking about killing it for food) but you would have no problem eating an omlette or frying an egg. Clearly most make a distinction between "eggs" adn "chickens", just as we make a clear distinction between "cells" and "people".

The thing that REALLY bothers me about this is that, according to EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST working on a cure for diabetes, parkinsons, alzheimers, etc., stem cell research represents, not only our BEST hope and most promising avenue, but what MAY be our ONLY hope!
I know of NO catholic scientists who have proposed a promising alternative to stem cell research to cure my affliction adn the reason this has me ready to climb into a clock tower with a high powered rifle is this:

THOSE OPPOSED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH(overwhelmingly) DO NOT HAVE DIABETES OR ALZHEIMERS(etc.)!! It is fine for them to oppose science(do we learn NOTHING from Galileo RCC?)! They don't have to wake up to paramedics and doctors every other week after a seizure so violent that bones are broken adn windows are shattered. They don't have to stab their fingers 7 or 8 times a day and go through the whole blood sugar checking ritual. They don't have to take the insulin(which, in large part, causes the seizures) in order to stay alive. They did not have to explain to their wives why sex would no longer be a part of the marriage(good thing for Catholics I guess since sex is evil anyway ). They are not forced to stop doing the work they know because of complications from neuropathy and all of this beofre they hit their early 30's!

Pretty easy to join a "Crusade"(no matter how silly that crusade may be) when none of your family are in the way of the pious knights' lances.

 

Sheesh. The Way I See It: If it's not conscious, do what you want. Why not use rDNA to make more of those babies who do not have brains? Grow 'em in glass tanks, it doesn't matter if half break. Use 'em for stem cells. Use 'em for research. It's ethically better than testing things on rats- THEY have brains. They feel pain. And stemcell technology has much bigger implications than curing diseases.

BTW: Frankly, those who are homophobic usually haven't got gay children either.

 

Hmmm... first of all, I doubt if the Roman Catholic Church is the only group rejecting it. Maybe it is the most vocal.

Second, who is actually preventing it, religious groups or the government?

Third, I think the main argument against it is it could lead to abuse, the same argument I guess against cloning, which actually "pro" life.

I sympathize with your condition but I have a cousin who is Type 1 diabetic. She doesn't support stem cell research.

 

Not every stem cell would develop into a human being even if placed in a woman's uterus. There are several different kinds of stem cells including some found in adults which are specialized.

I am in support of stem cell research. I also support organ donation.

 

I never said they were the only group opposing it but the far-right Christians represetn the overwhlming(hwole?) opposition to stem-cell research adn within that group, the catholics are the biggest subset(and the Catholics also tout the greatest political lobbying power of ANY group in America, IF you break up Christianity into it's various denominations).

Here in America, the government IS the people(or at least the people with the clout and money) adn the "people" with the best seats at the table are the Catholics and other conservative Christians as well as corporations. Coporations supply money while Churches supply voters.

Not here it ain't! Here the "main argument" is that embryonic stem cells are living people who should have the same "rights" as a newborn baby.

The "it could lead to abuse" argument is too silly to even consider. For all the dire warnings about the alleged dangers of cloning, no credible scientist on the planet is currently looking into trying to create human clones and most don't even think this possible or at least very likely.

It is kind of like the pro-lifers' crusade against the so called "partial Birth abortion" procedure. For all the crap and smokescreen we had to endure about this allegedly rampant practice, no one seems able to find a single doctor who has ever performed a partial birth abortion or knows of such a procedure!

Too bad for your cousin but I have a hard time sympathizing with the willfully ignorant. I would say the same for a women who, after being diagnosed with breast cancer or something worse, opts to try homeopathy and reject modern medicine. Shame she would die but I cannot lose sleep over those who submit to quackery without proper investigation into the matter.

I would ask what your cousin's objection was but I already know it cannot be any scientific reason so I am sure that whatever the specifics are, the rationale will not do anything for me.

@Nakia

Thumbs up! That is the other related issue here: organ donation! How those opposed to stem cell research can look those children in the eye who are waiting on a donor for bone marrow or some organ and tell them "I oppose doctors using available and soon to be available(in some country anyways) techology to provide for the means to save your life." is disgusting! Much of the problem with such patients waiting on organ or marrow donations is because their bodies reject such from incompatible donors. With organs harvested from the patient's stem cells, this would not be an issue adn there would be no "waiting list" for children to languish on until they die.

 

Groups all over the world are working on broad and specific molecular networks within the cell, and slowly the pieces are coming together. Once the pathways of cell regulation (both spatial and temporal) are unlocked, the stem cell will become an important resource for many, many applications, from production of biochemical compounds (eg- insulin) to regeneration of complete organs/limbs.

@ Runequester
"Blastocyst" is what you're looking for.

 

First of all, no research in embryonic stem cells has ever yielded any potentially promising results. The cells invariably refuse to split, split uncontrolled, or form an unwanted form. This all comes from one simple premise: embryonic stem cell division and function is largely regulated by the mother's organism.
Now, I am a supporter of stem cell research, but of sensible research. Take stem cells taken from adults (spine cord liquid, I don't know the proper name) as an example. Research has been satisfactory and fruitful already, and even autotransplantations of stem cells to bone marrow have been successful in treating leukemia. Research on animals proves that adult stem cells can be used to reconstruct a dysfunctional, or non-functional retina, and adult stem cells split and form properly, as opposed to embryonic stem cells which, as already said, invariably fail to prove useful in treatment of anything. Such stem cell treatment may even cure colour blindness (or blindness itself) in the future.

So, even if the 'sanctity of life' point doesn't hit anyone, then 'sensibility' should at least. After all, what's the point of funding research in one branch, if it failed to provide any breakthrough, and if another, very similar, but based on slightly different premises, branch is doing very well.

 

I thought it was the Jews.

I don't think it is too bad and that she is willfully ignorant. She's just willing to stand for what she believes in, just like you, and look past her condition to support what she believes is a greater good.

Sorry if I assumed that but...

 

RuneQuestor: Your post is heartrending. It is almost unbelievable how some people prefer the welfare of the unborn and never-will-be-born to the welfare of the living neighbors they claim to love. Hypocrites! Or merely fools deluded by sophistry. Two people close to me have suffered from diabetes, but only one suffers now. The other died of it. I have no sympathy at all with those who consider a nebulous idealism more important than the anguish of living persons. Perhaps if these idealists were having their toes chopped off one by one as their extremities lost circulation, typical in diabetes, they'd take a different view. Or perhaps not. Fanatics do love to suffer.

 

Remember kids, stem cell research = bad, abortion = good.

If federal law and aid is any guide, that is...

 

I am not sure what my thoughts on this topic are but I see some major advantages and disadvantages. I guess only time will tell if its used or abused.

A little off topic but Doctors such as Jan de Vris suggest suggest that chemotherapy shortens life, so recommended natural alternatives can only help. A good example is willowbark. Chewing on this is good for people with heart troubles (thinning the blood). Asprin comes from willow bark and scientists taken properties to make these tablets. The earliest form of asprin actually made your mouth bleed because they neglected some properties that willowbark contains to counter this. Many doctors recommend willowbark over asprin as its less harmful.

 

Please read toughluck's post carefully. There are many facets to stem cell research.
Being against research on embryonic cells which have the potential to become living beings is one thing. Being against stem cell research in general is only showing a lack of knowledge. Do some research of your own before you make blanket judgements.

I have a personal stake in this research. This research properly done can save lives and cut down on suffering or handicaps.

 

BTW, I know a priest who graduated from Biochemistry and researches—you guessed it!—stem cells, taken from adults.

 

I'm afraid that's wrong, since cell differentiation is mostly regulated by paracrine signals (cells send signals to nearby cells via diffusion) and not endocrine signals (via the blood). There are however signals (morfogenfactors and mRNA) present in different parts of the eggcell, which will, as the ebryo divides, be located in different cells and thereby regulating differentiation.

On a sidenote, here are some definitions on the begining of life for everyone to think on.

 

Pressed for time a bit but briefly:

@Tassadar

Thanks for teh correct spelling of "Blastocyst"(I knew I was way off!).

@Toughluck

Anecdotes about "I happen to know someone who knows something about this and thinks that adult stem cells are satisfactory." do us NO good. Anecdotal evidence is bollocks.

If what you say were true then all of the researchers currently working on these matters would simply avoid the mess and use adult stem cells. They don't. I am no scientist or researcher adn so will not attempt to even recall all of the technical reasons they argue against what you say.

@Cesard: I have not studied willowbark specifically, which is why I did not go off ona rant about "Willowbark" and instead pointed out, generally, that homeopathy was bunk. If you want to get into all the hows and whys of that debate, go to quackwatch.org(or any of the skeptical review sites). When we point out that homeopathy is bunk, this does not mean that there is not a single plant or weed or unrefined bit of moss on the planet which can have benefits to being chewed or whatever. Just that the basic premise that one can take something like say, spider legs, dilute it with a million parts water and use it to treat or cure something(even if spider legs had some curative properties or benefits, which they do not, diluting them with a million parts water renders them inert).
If doctors are prescribing "willowbark" then it is not "alternative medicine" and is therefore irrelevant.

BTW Chemotherapy "shortens life"? Not if you are a cancer patient with no other possible treatment. That is like saying that "Amputation shortens life.".

@Nakia

Embryonic cells do NOT have the potential to become "living beings"(however you define that term). They must be placed within a uterus in order to even have a shot, at which point they are not useable for stem cell research.
Also note that, as I said (or as Dr. melton said actually), it is not about where "life" begins" because after all trees are alive but we cut them down and use them as resources.
it is about when personhood begins.

I can't help but notice that no one here wanted to tackle the "Which would you save in the burning clinic?" hypothetical. Telling. I should think that the "right to life" crowd would grab the cooler full of embryos to save thousands of "lives" rather than grab their child saving only ONE life.

 

I'd save the child. No brainer really. Stem cells are just cells that haven't differentiated. Would you save a pancreatic beta-islet cell? Smooth muscle cell? Dendrite? Langherhans cell? Over a child? Didn't think so.

Adult/embryonic stem cells: I can see applications for both. The embryonic stem cell can become anything. The adult stem cell is limited to what it can differentiate into. The adult stem cell, I am pretty sure, will be subject to a set life span like other adult cells, unlike the embryonic version which is immortal. Depending on the situation, adult or embryonic cells could be used.

Another key application of stem cells will be the generation of "tissue" models for experiments. No more animal testing or cell culture. Anyone who works with these will tell you how fickle and inaccurate current models are. I would love to be able to have a 3D tumour environment complete with blood vessels to screen for active compounds. So would many others in the field.

 

The following links to the Stem Cell Reserch Foundation http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/

I quote from one of their FAQ's
"Totipotent cells are considered the "master" cells of the body because they contain all the genetic information needed to create all the cells of the body plus the placenta, which nourishes the human embryo. Human cells have this capacity only during the first few divisions of a fertilized egg. After 3 - 4 divisions of totipotent cells, there follows a series of stages in which the cells become increasingly specialized. The next stage of division results in pluripotent cells, which are highly versatile and can give rise to any cell type except the cells of the placenta. At the next stage, cells become multipotent, meaning they can give rise to several other cell types, but those types are limited in number."

I understand and respect the opinion of those who are opposed to the use of totipotent cells. Unfortunately people do not understand that there are different types of cells.

According to the Foundation the University of Wisconsin is doing research with adult stem cells which may eventually lead to a cure for the deadly neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS}.

Research with adult stem cells is still in an embryonic stage itself. But it is being done.

 

RuneQuestor: I do believe I answered your question.

 

@Tassadar: Are you a clinical researcher and/or physician? Sounds like it from your last post.

@RuneQuester: To the question of who I would save, the answer is simple, the child.

The rest of this reply will be written from the perspective of both a Roman Catholic and a clinical scientist. (No the two are not mutually exclusive or diammetrically opposed!) The area of stem cell research seems very promising, but it has yet to produce any major breakthroughs or treatments, and I will remain ambivalent about it until it does. To me, the "promise" of stem cell research is being overblown without some successful therapy on the market it can point to, especially when the problems that have been pointed out by other posters have yet to be overcome.

I am reminded of the fanfare roughly five years ago about the way biotechnology would revolutionize the way medicine will be practiced in the future. To be blunt about it, we're still waiting on biotech, and it doesn't even have many of the problems encountered in stem cell research. I know that some biotech treatments have been brought to market, so noone needs to point this out. However, the products that have been brought to market are far far fewer than projections made them out to be. Additionally, many of the few products that make it have to be recalled. If I remember the lecture I attended on the subject last semester correctly, biotech accounted for about 10% of new therapies being brought to market but accounted for nearly half of the recalls. All in all, biotech has yet to deliver.

I bring this up because I get the feeling within the general public that many people believe that gene therapy and stem cell research will be the salve for all the wounds and hurts that we can't seem to reach right now, and those who want to conduct this type of research have done nothing to correct this misconception. They have yet to conduct the basic research let alone derive delivery vectors, adjunct therapy types to prevent rejection, or define what side effects may occur. This will take years if not decades. I can say this because currently it takes a small molecule drug, which is far less complicated than the aforementioned systems, approximately ten to fifteen years to make it through development and approval, and the total cost involved averages 850 million dollars. The costs and time requirements for the types of therapies people are envisioning I shudder to think about. A standard patent life of twenty years may be up before it hits the market.

However, I do think that options like this should be explored for people who have difficulty with conventional treatments, but finding a sponsor willing to commit to this type of project would be difficult.

As for Embryonic stem cells, I don't have a problem with the ones sitting in some doc's freezer because their opportunity for life is gone, but I do have a problem with them going out and harvesting new ones. The process echoes abortion in that a human embryo is destroyed, which I find abominable. Other stem cells I have no problem with. Adult, fetal cord blood, whatever. As long as a human life is not destroyed in the process.

 

@ Archbishop

Well, I'm still deciding whether to do my PhD, or just leave it there. It's quite tempting, but then again once you get it, you have to be a scientist for life. So I'm a student/research technician who doesn't really want to go on to his PhD. I'm in the cancer field, what field are you in?