Stem Cell Research

philadiddle · Dec 16, 2010

I was watching a show last night were the focus was on skin diseases that people have. One of them was EB (can't remember what it stands for) where the first layer of skin doesn't bond to the second layer of skin. So when you move too much or get the slightest bump the skin comes right off and leaves many open wounds on the body.

The one kid they were showing who had this had to have the wounds cleaned every other day and the bathwater made him scream.

However, he was the 13th recipient of an experimental treatment that uses stem cells and his brothers marrow to help him produce the "stuff" to help the skin bind (I don't remember the medical terms). A few months after the treatment he was doing much better and didn't cry in baths anymore. They showed another kid who had received the treatment and he was running and jumping and swimming in a pool.

As a Christian, it makes me sick to my stomach that some religious baffoons are out there protesting stem cell research because of some metaphysical nutty claims that only exist in their heads. In reality, stem cell research helps all sorts of people with serious ailments. If I ever come face to face with a Christian who is adamently opposed to stem cell research I probably won't be able to contain my anger. There are too many children out there who need it (and adults.)

Sorry for the rant.

Cute Tink · Dec 16, 2010

I don't know many people who are against stem cell research in general. Embryonic stem cells are the ones they object to, because it requires the destruction of an embryo.

Cabal · Dec 16, 2010

Cute Tink said:
I don't know many people who are against stem cell research in general. Embryonic stem cells are the ones they object to, because it requires the destruction of an embryo.

See, does it though? That's what I thought it involved - then I realised they have stem cell LINES. Once you have stem cells in culture (and can reproduce, be plated, etc), doesn't that dispense with the need to cook up a fresh batch of embryos to make more?

That said, bone marrow stem cell production for cures is pretty darn awesome.

Was at a science expo recently, and there's a group in London trying mass-produce blood using stem cells. Word.

Cute Tink · Dec 16, 2010

See, does it though? That's what I thought it involved - then I realised they have stem cell LINES. Once you have stem cells in culture (and can reproduce, be plated, etc), doesn't that dispense with the need to cook up a fresh batch of embryos to make more?

I really have no idea. All I have read about it are news articles and that's always what was said, but it has been a very long time since I read anything about it.

From what you posted, it seems like the main objection to using the stem cell lines would be rather moot at this point.

Cabal · Dec 16, 2010

Cute Tink said:
I really have no idea. All I have read about it are news articles and that's always what was said, but it has been a very long time since I read anything about it.

From what you posted, it seems like the main objection to using the stem cell lines would be rather moot at this point.

Stem cell controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it's wiki, but even a cursory review of the controversy over stem cells seems moot, given that:

- stem cell lines that were created from embryos were made from those leftover from IVF, that would be destroyed anyway
- stem cell lines have been made that don't result in the embryo being destroyed.

To ape that line from Family Guy about this very topic: WHY ARE WE NOT FUNDING THIS?!

Cute Tink · Dec 16, 2010

Cabal said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy- stem cell lines that were created from embryos were made from those leftover from IVF, that would be destroyed anyway

That's why I didn't understand most of the outrage to begin with, but some people didn't want them destroyed at all anyway, so at least they were consistent.

philadiddle · Dec 16, 2010

I was looking up a few things because of your comments and stumbled upon this:

HIV & AIDS Information :: Stem cell transplant has cured HIV infection in 'Berlin patient', say doctors

Cute Tink · Dec 16, 2010

Very positive results. Hopefully this can continue.

knowledgeIsPower · Dec 17, 2010

Yes there are stem cell lines but the stem cells you get from embryos have been shown to demonstrate different properties to those from the cell lines. Embyonic stem cells are truly pluripotent (can turn into pretty much any other kind of cell) while somatic stem cells don't seem to demonstrate the same potential. There have been studies done trying to replicate the properties we see in embryonic stem cells but as far as I know they have not yet succeeded.

Embryonic stem cell research still results in using embryos but as has been mentioned these are embryos that would be dead anyway. Why it should then matter to the nutters that oppose this stuff I will never know.

jayem · Dec 17, 2010

It's the issue of personhood. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from blastocysts, which are what zygotes become 4-5 days after fertilization. If one thinks a ball of 150 or so undifferentiated cells is the moral equivalent of a newborn baby, then harvesting its cells is the moral equivalent of infanticide. There may be a certain internal logic there. But the starting premise is highly dubious. People can reasonably disagree on whether a 10 week, or 20 week, or 30 week fetus should be considered a person. But only a small minority would insist that a ball of 10 dozen cells is a person, with its own constitutional rights.

Wedjat · Dec 17, 2010

In discussions that I've had with people who oppose stem cell research in real life, this

Cabal said:
- stem cell lines that were created from embryos were made from those leftover from IVF, that would be destroyed anyway

Is what they usually don't understand. Once they know that, I've had a few people that seriously just went, "oh, well in that case go for it."

DontTreadOnMike · Dec 17, 2010

From the way that people react to stem cell research, you'd think that the underground sex-slave trade was putting women in cages so they can turn out babies to be sacrificed for research. All it takes is a little information to change most people's minds. Some people on the other hand....

Cute Tink · Dec 17, 2010

Wedjat said:
Is what they usually don't understand. Once they know that, I've had a few people that seriously just went, "oh, well in that case go for it."

Some I talked to about that simply turned to the option to offering those embryos that were to be dumped up for adoption instead.

Wedjat · Dec 17, 2010

That's a lot of resources going into maintaining a whole lotta embryo's without doing anything with them besides giving them to the occasional couple. I don't see pre-fertilized embryo adoption having any more appeal than sperm banks and normal 'ol IVF.

lucaspa · Dec 23, 2010

philadiddle said:
However, he was the 13th recipient of an experimental treatment that uses stem cells and his brothers marrow to help him produce the "stuff" to help the skin bind (I don't remember the medical terms).

OK, now you are in my real area of expertise. Phil, whenever you hear the words "stem cells", you need to ask Which stem cells? From the inclusion of "his brother's marrow", I am thinking that these are a type of adult stem cell called "mesenchymal stem cells" or MSCs for short. Yep. I found a cite describing the treatment: Doctors Use Stem Cell Therapy For Genetic Skin Disease

As a Christian, it makes me sick to my stomach that some religious baffoons are out there protesting stem cell research because of some metaphysical nutty claims that only exist in their heads.

Sorry, but the rant is misplaced. The "stem cell research" being objected to is either embryonic stem cells (ES cells) or fetal stem cells. Not the adult stem cells used here.

In reality, stem cell research helps all sorts of people with serious ailments.

Actually, ES cells have never helped anyone with a serious ailment. there are some real problems with ES cells -- even disregarding the moral objection that a 5 day old blastocyst is a "human" in the legal and ethical sense of the term. ES cells placed together in a mass always form a type of tumor called a teratoma. There is also the problem of immune rejection.

Adult stem cells, such as MSCs, OTOH, never form a tumor and are not rejected. We have even done mouse adult stem cells into a rat (xenogenic) in my lab and not seen immunorejection.

So, before you start your rant, be sure you know which stem cells you are talking about. No one, to my knowledge, objects to adult stem cells.

lucaspa · Dec 23, 2010

DontTreadOnMike said:
From the way that people react to stem cell research, you'd think that the underground sex-slave trade was putting women in cages so they can turn out babies to be sacrificed for research.

Something similar is a real concern. Because ES cells are immunorejected when they differentiate, it is thought that you need the individual's own ES cells. A way to get those is to take the nucleus of person's cells -- call him "Tom" -- and put that nucleus into an unfertilzed ovum. Then have the ovum develop to the blastocyst stage and harvest the ES cells. Because these ES cells are Tom's, they won't be rejected by his immune system.

The process, so far, is terribly inefficient. The current ratio is about 200 ova to get Tom's ES cells. Where do we get all those ova? The concern is that women, particularly in developing and poor nations, will be offered a lot of money for their ova, and thus be exploited.

lucaspa · Dec 23, 2010

Cabal said:
Stem cell controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it's wiki, but even a cursory review of the controversy over stem cells seems moot, given that:

- stem cell lines that were created from embryos were made from those leftover from IVF, that would be destroyed anyway
- stem cell lines have been made that don't result in the embryo being destroyed.

To ape that line from Family Guy about this very topic: WHY ARE WE NOT FUNDING THIS?!

Leaving aside that the current example used adult stem cells and not embryonic stem cells, there are a couple of reasons we aren't funding this as heavily as people want:

1. Yes, the IVF embryos would be destroyed, but they are not. Why not? Because that destruction is an ethical problem. It runs up against the same ethical objection to ES cells: destruction of a "human being". Now, I personally don't believe that a 5 day old blastocyst is a "human being" in the ethical and legal sense, but some people do. So the IVF technique has itself created an ethical problem that has not been addressed. You can't use that unaddressed ethical problem to sidestep the problem.

2. It appears that ES cells are immunorejected once they differentiate. This limits the use of ES cells as treatment.

3. ES cells, when implanted in a mass (as is necessary for many diseases), always form teratomas. In fact, that's the assay to know you have ES cells: they form a teratoma when implanted in a mass. This limits the use of ES cells to situations where you can inject them in a suspension, which limits the number of ES cells you can apply to a particular situation.

So, considering that there are competing cells -- adult stem cells -- that will do what ES cells without the ethical or scientific problems, there are reasons to use the limited funds to fund adult stem cell research instead of embryonic stem cell research.

philadiddle · Dec 23, 2010

lucaspa said:
Actually, ES cells have never helped anyone with a serious ailment. there are some real problems with ES cells -- even disregarding the moral objection that a 5 day old blastocyst is a "human" in the legal and ethical sense of the term. ES cells placed together in a mass always form a type of tumor called a teratoma. There is also the problem of immune rejection.

If ES cells haven't helped anyone and always form a tumor, then why is it even an issue?

variant · Dec 26, 2010

philadiddle said:
If ES cells haven't helped anyone and always form a tumor, then why is it even an issue?

Because the research is both newer than it's counterpart and is not complete and it would be too soon to abandon it especially since we suspect it has more potential.

It would kind of be like abandoning jet engines since propellers work so much better and are easier to develop.

What will be interesting to see is if embryonic stem cells yield anything significant before other sources true stem cells work out well.

Cabal · Dec 26, 2010

philadiddle said:
If ES cells haven't helped anyone and always form a tumor, then why is it even an issue?

^This.

I haven't read into the actual literature, but there certainly seem to have been a few successes due to ES. I'm a bit dubious of this claim that they ALWAYS go wrong.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Stem Cell Research

Drumming circles around you

Blah

Well-Known Member

Blah

Well-Known Member

Blah

Drumming circles around you

Blah

knowledgeIsPower

Guest

Naturalist

Spirited Apostate

Eddaic Literalist

Blah

Spirited Apostate

Legend

Legend

Legend

Drumming circles around you

Happy Cat

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency