The stem-cell debate

[Kraken]

Anybody up for a thread that isn't about the election?

From Adult Stem Cells Comes Debate ran on the front page of today's Globe. It's quite long, but I found it to be a good summary of the issues and science. Specifically, it casts more doubt on RM9's opinion that adult stem cells hold equal potential to embryonic cells, although it doesn't refute the idea entirely.

Opinions? Dissenting links?

[/url]

[Schroeder]

Just a couple quickie points and observations...

1) My wife did research (a partenship paper published while she was still in Med school) a few years ago on a process to sythesize stem cells for experimental use. The testing and experiments were good but the possible applications were indeterminate for the near future.

2) IMHO, cord blood should be used rather than embryonic harvesting. Aside from the moral issues with it (which I have, I admit) the cord cells allow for greater pluraity than marrow or embryonic cells.

3) So far, (IMHO) the majority of the issue is based on the hype and promise of what the research MIGHT be rather than its actual successes. Given that, and with all of the moral implications, it seems wisest to concentrate on the cord blood side of things for now...


CS

[RunningMn9]

2) IMHO, cord blood should be used rather than embryonic harvesting. Aside from the moral issues with it (which I have, I admit) the cord cells allow for greater pluraity than marrow or embryonic cells.

I have never heard (ever, and I was looking) that cord blood stem cells have greater plurality than embryonic cells. How can you be better than being able to become ANY human cell? Can they become cat cells or something?

A problem with the cord blood is that there's a reason why people save it. To help themselves. I currently store the cord blood for both my kids. It's for them if they need it. Not for experimenting on.

[godhugh]

A problem with the cord blood is that there's a reason why people save it. To help themselves. I currently store the cord blood for both my kids. It's for them if they need it. Not for experimenting on.

Wow, I must really have a lot to learn about raising a new baby. Why would you store the cord blood? Or are you being sarcastic?

(Sorry to derail)

[Schroeder]

2) IMHO, cord blood should be used rather than embryonic harvesting. Aside from the moral issues with it (which I have, I admit) the cord cells allow for greater pluraity than marrow or embryonic cells.

I have never heard (ever, and I was looking) that cord blood stem cells have greater plurality than embryonic cells. How can you be better than being able to become ANY human cell? Can they become cat cells or something?

A problem with the cord blood is that there's a reason why people save it. To help themselves. I currently store the cord blood for both my kids. It's for them if they need it. Not for experimenting on.

Heh.




That's what I get for doing three things at once. Cord blood does not offer GREATER plurality. It does, however, offer the same potential/plurality without the moral issues involved on the embryonic side.

As to the issue of using it for your kids...noted. However, the 'supply' in that case is far greater per instance (baby blood vs. embryonic cell) to make this not nearly as weightly as the option of destroying human life for speculative research.





CS

p.s. I wonder what people would say to donating a few cord blood cells (not a large portion of the supply...merely a few cells) from each kid born across the U.S. for research purposes. That wouldn't hamper the ability to aid your own children and could also aid the research efforts.

p.p.s. Then again, that plan would open the doors for the Octopi Overlords to create a clone army of evil twins with nearly unstoppable power to...er...nevermind.

[Schroeder]

A problem with the cord blood is that there's a reason why people save it. To help themselves. I currently store the cord blood for both my kids. It's for them if they need it. Not for experimenting on.

Wow, I must really have a lot to learn about raising a new baby. Why would you store the cord blood? Or are you being sarcastic?

(Sorry to derail)

Chris, actually he's not being sarcastic. There are places that you can store cord blood now after a delivery. A quick google turns up several.

This tidbit is from the Cord Blood Registry.

Stem cells, found in bone marrow, peripheral blood, and umbilical cord blood, act as your body's "master" cells. They are the building blocks of your blood and immune system that can reproduce into other cell types, including bone, heart, muscle, and nerve.

Why are cord blood stem cells preferable to those found in bone marrow?

Higher chance of match - Cord blood can be successfully used even when a perfect match doesn't exist. Siblings have up to a 50% chance to find a cord blood match, compared to bone marrow.

Immediate availability - Families who bank cord blood can be assured that the stem cells are available if needed in the future. It is commonly known that trying to find a bone marrow match can be a much more time consuming process, even between family members.

Less GVHD - Patients who receive cord blood transplants from their families have significantly fewer problems with Graft vs. Host Disease, a sometimes fatal complication associated with transplants.

Cord Blood Registry® gives you the opportunity to store cord blood stem cells as a "self-repair kit" for potential medical uses. Not only can stem cells be used to treat a variety of blood diseases and cancers that have traditionally been treated with bone marrow transplantation, but new research is being conducted that shows the potential for stem cells to help treat more common diseases such as heart disease, stroke, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.

Collecting cord blood poses no risk to you or your baby, and it does not interrupt the delivery process. It is simple, safe, and painless.

[/url]

[flycatcher]

2) IMHO, cord blood should be used rather than embryonic harvesting. Aside from the moral issues with it (which I have, I admit) the cord cells allow for greater pluraity than marrow or embryonic cells.

Cord blood contains a large number of blood stemcells, which are not pluripotent, but multipotent.

Just to define terminology.

Totipotent means a cell has the ability to from any type of cell, both embryonic and extraembryonic. The fertilized egg is totipotent along with the first 4-8, maybe 16, cells made in an embryo.

Pluripotent- means that the cell can form any of the cell types found in the embryonic germ layers, ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm. thay can't form an entire embryo. Embryonic stemcells are pluripotent.

Adultstem cells are mulitpotent, like a blood stem cell can form all the lineages of blood cells, but not say a muscle cell(although this point is hottly debated at the moment).


Again the arguement that just because an immediate cure for a disease may not be possible is not a reason to research something. How long have we been researching cancer? Is there a cure yet? No. But have we developed new drugs and treatments that have saved a lot of lives? yes.
It takes years of research to build a knowledge or information base to figure out how things work, and then how to use that information to start making therapuetic treatments or drugs.

[Kraken]

destroying human life for speculative research.

Interesting way of seeing it. I've been having a hard time understanding the right's moral objections. To me, it is unethical to forgo research that could help actual living, suffering people in favor of the sanctity of a ball of undifferentiated cells.

[RunningMn9]

Wow, I must really have a lot to learn about raising a new baby. Why would you store the cord blood? Or are you being sarcastic?

(Sorry to derail)

Not being sarcastic at all. Before my son was born, by wife read something about it and looked into it. When they deliver the baby, they collect the cord blood (using the awful phrase "milking the placenta" to describe the process...), and then store it.

In the case of my kids, because both were c-sections, there was more blood-loss than they would like, so they have smaller samples for each of them.

The reason you do it is either because someone sold me some snakeoil (:)), or because these blood stem cells (I *think* they are actually "adult stem cells", no?) either can be used now, or will be able to be used in the future instead of bone marrow transplants for such fun cancers as leukemia and the like (I could be totally wrong, but that's what I recall).

But, the good thing is - it's their own cells, so you should have no risk of rejection or anything like that.

Ironrod - I think the moral argument is rooted in the right's ethical concerns surrounding human cloning. I think.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Ironrod - I think the moral argument is rooted in the right's ethical concerns surrounding human cloning. I think.

That is my understanding as well... a slippery-slope type argument, where soon we'll be making back-up clones and harvesting their organs as we need them.

At some point we do come to some icky choices...

[flycatcher]

The reason you do it is either because someone sold me some snakeoil (:)), or because these blood stem cells (I *think* they are actually "adult stem cells", no?) either can be used now, or will be able to be used in the future instead of bone marrow transplants for such fun cancers as leukemia and the like (I could be totally wrong, but that's what I recall).

But, the good thing is - it's their own cells, so you should have no risk of rejection or anything like that.

You are correct rm

[Spock's Brain]

RunningMn9 wrote:

Ironrod - I think the moral argument is rooted in the right's ethical concerns surrounding human cloning. I think.

It could just as easily be rooted in their stance against abortion. If life begins at conception, is an embryo created in a petri dish really have any less of a right to life than one formed the old fashioned way?

[noxiousdog]

The reason you do it is either because someone sold me some snakeoil (:)), or because these blood stem cells (I *think* they are actually "adult stem cells", no?) either can be used now, or will be able to be used in the future instead of bone marrow transplants for such fun cancers as leukemia and the like (I could be totally wrong, but that's what I recall).

According to our doctor, it's only good for people with significant amounts of disposable income. The chances of actually needing it are extremely remote, not that it stops them from charging you $100/year or some such nonsense.

[RunningMn9]

According to our doctor, it's only good for people with significant amounts of disposable income. The chances of actually needing it are extremely remote, not that it stops them from charging you $100/year or some such nonsense.

Indeed. But I wasn't going to be the guy that looked back when his kid is 5 years old, stricken with leukemia, wishing that I was actually the guy that didn't care about the money and did it. And if I don't have to worry about that because my kids don't turn out to need it? Well, I suppose I'll just be happy that they don't need it.

At least that's what I tell myself when I fork over the $200 per year.

[Kraken]

It could just as easily be rooted in their stance against abortion. If life begins at conception, is an embryo created in a petri dish really have any less of a right to life than one formed the old fashioned way?

Do they also oppose in vitro fertilization, then? If not, what do they propose be done with all the extra embryos?

[Jaymann]

"Around the world scientists are pouring into the field, because human embryonic stem cells have the power to become any cell in the body, offering the promise of dramatic scientific and medical advances. The work, however, requires destroying days-old human embryos, which critics say is tantamount to taking lives."

Just where are they getting these human embryos to destroy? Abortion Clinics? Test tubes?

[Kraken]

CA Stem Cell Plan May Hurt Mass.

Most of you probably won't care about the implications of luring cutting-edge medical research away from Harvard, MIT and Mass General. But I thought I should mention that California's initiative passed: $300 million per year on embryonic stem cell research for 10 years.

(edit) While I don't entirely forgive Bush his stance on this issue, California's move takes some of the focus away, IMO.

[Spock's Brain]

It could just as easily be rooted in their stance against abortion. If life begins at conception, is an embryo created in a petri dish really have any less of a right to life than one formed the old fashioned way?

Do they also oppose in vitro fertilization, then? If not, what do they propose be done with all the extra embryos?

Actually, many of them are ethically opposed to IVF, at least the current methods that require "surplus" embryos. I guess those objections might disappear if the tech reaches the point where successful implantation could be guaranteed. However, that's far from a given, even for natural conception. I've read that a significant proportion of embryos, as high as 40%, fail to implant in the uterus, and thus the woman miscarries before she even knows she's pregnant.

[Kraken]

Yes, it's me again. Hey, at least it's my dead horse... I had thought that California's initiative took this issue off the national agenda; this article argues that it is just getting started. It's a worthwhile opinion piece.

Stem cell vote blurs religion-based politics

If the research seeded by California shows progress, Bush will come under increasing pressure to lift his federal restrictions -- something he almost certainly will not do. That would provide tangible evidence of the price of Bush's religion-based politics, a demonstration of how policies based on religious values are impervious to the usual political constraints, be they scientific evidence, changed circumstances, or growing popular opinion.
(...)
Arthur Caplan, who heads the bioethics program at the University of Pennsylvania, predicted the referendum could have the perverse effect of reducing pressure on Bush to lift the federal ban -- at first. But if people start being cured of chronic diseases, the issue will return with a vengeance.

''If it delivers, there will be a lot of pressure to lift the federal ban," Caplan said. ''But I'm not looking for any breakthroughs for three to four years."

By Caplan's timetable, the wave will hit right before the next presidential election, when Republicans under the tutelage of Karl Rove -- the prime architect of Bush's strategy of rallying evangelical voters -- will be looking to consolidate their gains.

By then, an issue that was an asterisk in this year's campaign could strike with the force of an exclamation point.