Stem cell research v. organ/tissue donation

1. Make that certain giant leap. Spinal cords in rats have been restored for crying out loud.

2. Adult stem cells show only a fraction of the promise embryonic stemcells do. Adult stem cells provide only the possible giant leap.

3. The "embryo's" (not really embryo's yet) harvested are harvested at a level of development at which 75% would miscarry anyway. Either outlaw reproduction, or accept that such "embryo's" perish at a massive scale. Stem cell research wouldn't amount to more than a drop in the ocean.

4. "Embryo's" used for research were destined for the dustbin before being bought for research. Outlaw "test tube fertilization" or accept that these "embryo's" are lost, stem cell research or not.

Note: Material is harvested before any cells specialise, which means the harvested material is but a colony of identical cells. Nothing more than a bacterial culture with Human genetic material.

Thank you for your input to this discussion, Idaho. I do appreciate your views.

I want to point out the differences in stems cells a bit if I may. Einherjar mentioned the differences as well, but I would love to expand on that.

Adult stem cells
Stem cells found in different tissues of the developed, adult organism that remain in an undifferentiated, or unspecialized, state. These stem cells can give rise to specialized cell types of the tissue from which they came, i.e., a heart stem cell can give rise to a functional heart muscle cell, but it is still unclear whether they can give rise to all different cell types of the body.

Umbilical cord stem cells
Hematopoietic stem cells are present in the blood of the umbilical cord during and shortly after delivery. These stem cells are in the blood at the time of delivery, because they move from the liver, where blood-formation takes place during fetal life, to the bone marrow, where blood is made after birth. Umbilical cord stem cells are similar to stem cells that reside in bone marrow, and can be used for the treatment of leukemia, and other diseases of the blood. Efforts are now being undertaken to collect these cells and store them in freezers for later use. However, one problem is that there may not be enough umbilical cord stem cells in any one sample to transplant into an adult.

Embryonic stem cell
Also called ES cells, embryonic stem cells are cells derived from the inner cell mass of developing blastocysts. An ES cell is self-renewing (can replicate itself), pluripotent (can form all cell types found in the body) and theoretically is immortal.

This is, in my opinion, why the Embryonic cells are so vitally important to Therapeutic Stem Cell Research.

What is even moreamazing is that now they can create a (blastocyst).....
Blastocyst
A very early embryo consisting of approximately 150 cells. The blastocyst is a spherical cell mass produced by cleavage of the zygote (fertilized egg). It contains a fluid-filled cavity, a cluster of cells called the inner cell mass (from which embryonic stem cells are derived) and an outer layer of cells called the trophoblast (that forms the placenta)

....without using sperm for fertilization, but using a woman's own cumulus cells. Researchers used a process called nuclear transfer, which involves removing the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a so-called adult cell -- in this case a cumulus cell.

No sperm, blastocyst created, stem cells retrieved. Where is the moral or ethical issue with this point? Just curious....

At first glance, knowing no more than what you have posted, I don't see a moral problem here. I would have to do more research before making my final judgement, however.

Now, a UC Berkeley bioengineer has devised a way to enhance the utility of adult stem cells that could steal some of the spotlight away from embryonic stem cells and eventually lead to treatments or cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Adult stem cells - alzheimers

Human fat cells used for stem cell show promise:
MSN - human fat stem cells

Adult stem cells have already produced amazing results, IN HUMANS, but is being largely ignored by the media. Doesn't that seem strange?
Adult stem cells in human trials

See, the lives that can be saved with Stem Cell research si not 50 years away, more like 5-15 years. The rate at which research is porgressing is astounding.

Even proponents (scientists) aren't saying 5 - 15 years away yet. The findings are promising but preliminary. The research is in its infancy right now. Work on aborted fetus tissue has been taking place for nearly 20 years already (it was a controversy during Bush senior's administration) with nothing to show for it in terms of applicable therapies. It sounds good and there is a big hoopla to draw attention to it, but realistically, those of us who are alive today will most likely not be the beneficiaries.

Since im only 16, im going to assume i will benifit from it.

Hi Idaho. Thank you for joining the conversation and presenting an opposing viewpoint.

All research is based on possiblity. None of it is guaranteed. I'm sure for every treatment and cure available that there are hundreds of errors and dead ends that paved the way.

I really do understand that you think that destroying this potential life is amoral. What I don't understand is why it is more amoral to let them expire than to be used in research.

Whether you agree or not (and whether it is legal or not) abortions will continue to happen. Is it not better that this life serves a purpose in this world?

Miscarrages will happen, still births will happen and as always, people will continue to die from accidents and diseases. Is donation for research on these bodies amoral?

My father died in his mid-60s from Alheimer's disease. He was aware that early onset Alzheimers has shown a strong heriditary connection. He did a whole body donation so that perhaps it might help science understand more about the human brain and body and perhaps his gift would help someone else, maybe even one of his own kids, maybe even me. Maybe even you. It was obviously too late to help him.

I am really trying to understand your position. But I can't understand it.

Hi Etruscia! Thanks for joining the conversation, I agree with what you say.

But the fact is, we don't know if it's five years or fifty years or never from now. It really doesn't matter. We don't and won't know until we try. Like you, I think many of us will live to see the benefits, should they exist. And if we don't? So the hell what! Maybe our kids will, or their kids. We will learn something.

Hi to you too Einherjar! That is an interesting list. Item number four especially captures my attention.

I wonder if we would find a difference in religiosity between people who turn to science for conception help vs. those who would assume that God intended them to not conceive. I'm old enough to remember the horror many felt over the danger of "test tube babies". That science in itself was quite controversial, now its common.

Thank you Lady J. I feel like a kid who got someone to do their homework for them. You just have to love A2K!

I had heard that they had found a way to eliminate sperm from the equation but I had stored it somewhere in the back of my brain.

You are absolutely correct. There is a huge potential for using specialized transplanted cells, but I think the media (as it likes to overdramatize everything) has picked up on the the most controversial of stem cell news and that is the embryonic, of course.

There are a lot of ways that "part specific" stem cells can and hopefully will be utilized... some more examples of what you already mentioned are:

Bone marrow stromal cell
Also known as mesenchymal stem cells, bone marrow stromal cells are a mixed population of cells derived from the non-blood forming fraction of bone marrow. Bone marrow stromal cells are capable of growth and differentiation into a number of different cell types including bone, cartilage and fat.

Mesemchymal stem cell
Also known as bone marrow stromal cells, mesenchymal stem cells are rare cells, mainly found in the bone marrow, that can give rise to a large number of tissue types such as bone, cartilage (the lining of joints), fat tissue, and connective tissue (tissue that is in between organs and structures in the body

Neural stem cell
A type of stem cell that resides in the brain, which can make new nerve cells (called neurons) and other cells that support nerve cells (called glia). In the adult, neural stem cells can be found in very specific and very small areas of the brain where replacement of nerve cells is seen.

These are a few....but they don't cover the entire bases that can be derived from the stem cells of a blastocyst, which can literally become any part of any body.

I just thought of something kind of interesting....Cumulus cells are only found in the ovaries of women. Men have no cumulus cells. Cumulus cells are the cells scientists have used for cell nuclear transfer (removing the nucleus of the woman's egg and transferring the cumulus cell into the egg to replace the original nucleus). Does this mean, that women could be potentially "medically A-sexual? :wink:


Hehehe...we don need no stinkin mens! Just kidding, just kidding!!

Well, I hope that you personally would not need to benefit from it, but I truly hope you get to see the benefits of it in your lifetime!

IMO, the biggest issue with embryonic stem cell research is that the scientific community appears to want to push ahead full steam but isn't addressing (or at least making public) the ethics of their work. Like every scientific advancement, there are two major questions to address. "Can we do X?" and "Should we do X?".

It's about time the ethical considerations of the work caught up with the labratory. (And telling peole they are stupid for having concerns isn't "addressing" the ethical concerns.)

I am a fiercly against Stem Cell research. I am not a religious fanatic infact I am very much an atheist.

I still do not understand how you people can not consider a fetus a life. I mean you too were in that stage of development. At no point in time does that fetus have a chance to be anything but human. It is human. It is alive. If it was dead it would not grow any further.

Your views on science are quite cold and if they are to hold true then why not just go all out and again start studying humans by force. I heard of all sorts of great research the Nazi's derived from their Jewish "patients". OH wait I am sorry, that is not you. That's why you can say so easily that we should take someone elses life and use it to benefit you.

Stem Cells have to taken from a live fetus otherwise the cells are useless. Organs can be transplanted even when the body is dead. I am not going to the person and killing them for their organs. That wouldn't be right niether would killing a baby for it's cells. No matter how soon we MIGHT find a cure for some diseases we must not start killing each other for what might be.

Hi fishin'.

I think in all medical practice there are ethical concerns and of course they need to be addressed. As I looked around the other day I found many articles about what is done with unclaimed embryos but not much about what or how research is taking place. Is that the ethical considerations you are talking about?

I don't recall anyone calling anyone else's opinion "stupid". Maybe I missed something....

Hi to you too, The Gert One. I'm not taking about any kind of force -- I'm talking about willing people donating an embryo for research.

Organs for transplant are taken from bodies whose heart continue to beat and whose lungs continue to breathe with the help of machinery. The brain is dead but the body lives until the transplants can be arranged. Taking bodies off the machinery so the organs can be harvested is what kills them as they would "live" indefinately without intervention.

I think there are probably a host of concerns. What happens to cells that turn out to be a "dead end" from a research perspective? Will stem cells be allowed to further research on human cloning? How far along in embryonic development are these cells to be used? What will be developed from these stem cells (since, we are told, they can be used to develop literally any organ)? etc, etc.. There are a lot of questions that very few researchers seem to want to address and, like anything else, people aren't likely to be enthusastic supporters until they get those answers.

Stem cells are almost the political opposite of nuclear power when people ask about how we'll dispose of nuclear waste, the safety of plants, etc..



I didn't mean in this thread. It seems to me that a lot of the people that are labeled as "religiously opposed" have at least some of the questions I mentioned above. Instead of addressing the ethical concerns they are often derided as "blocking science", "choosing religion over science", etc.. In somes cases the word stupid is used, in other cases its implied. In either case it doesn't convince many who question the ethics involved to change their view.

*very much an atheist, religous fanatics go both ways, there are christian fanatics and atheistic fanatics.

Well, the embryonic stem cells are mostly derived from still births, or miscarriages. These embryos would not live anyways, but in this case they have the potenital to save a life. All embryos taken are given willingly, there is no Research police that bust into the delivery room and take the embryo so they can research. As you equated it with Nazis who forcefully took Jews out of their homes and were forced to cooperate with research.

No one is killing any babies for their stem cells.

Those are very good questions, fishin'.

For argument's sake, let me counter with...

Do you remember the story a few years back where an couple had a baby in hopes that it would be a genetic match for their other child, who needed a kidney transplant?

People were aghast over the ethics of their decision to create a potential organ donor for their child when they had not intended to otherwise have more children.

It was their decision and no one could prevent them from making he decision to have more kids for whatever purpose.

Was it ethical? I confess to being a bit taken aback by their decision. BUT I don't have a kid dying of kidney failure either.

There will always be opposing viewpoints on ethics. It is not unheard of in IVF for the parent to chose selective abortion when several of the embryos implant. Creepy? Hell yes! My decision to make? Hell no!

In an organ/tissue donation scenario such as the one I suggest for embryic stem cell research, should each person be allowed to make that decision for their creation?

As to the stupid thing, I'm glad I didn't miss anything. I typically don't open discussions to get agreement but to learn other opinions to help me think my way through.

I'd agree that those aren't my decisons to make either however, to my knowledge people in those situations aren't typically spending taxpayer $$ in making those decisions.



IMO, sure they do.

Where you and I do gain a voice though, is whether or not we want to spend public money on the research.

Its not exactly like their knocking on my door asking if I approve of all the things my tax dollars are being spent on now, fishin'!

lol They never knock on mine either! Who's doors are they knocking on anyway?