Ironworks Gaming Forum - The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101725)

The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

In light of the recent court decision concerning the Obama administration's use of funds for embryonic research, I thought attention should be drawn to ADULT stem cell research, which unlike embryonic research, doesn't kill human life, and doesn't cause division and anger over an offensive moral "grey area".

Check it out:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...stem_cell.html

Quote:

The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over biotechnology and human genetics: Should we use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells for future medical therapies? Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).

Stem cells are of wide interest for medicine, because they have the potential, under suitable conditions, to develop into almost all of the different types of cells. They should therefore be able to repair damaged or defective tissues (for example, destroyed insulin-producing cells in the pancreas). Many of the so-called degenerative diseases, for which there are as yet no effective therapies, could then be alleviated or healed.

It is remarkable that in the debate–often carried on with little competence–the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence. Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today–cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth. Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems.

On closer inspection, however, the much extolled vision of the future turns out to be a case of completely empty promises: Given the elementary state of research today, it is by no means yet foreseeable, whether even one of the hoped-for treatments can be realized. Basically, such promised cures are a deliberate deception, for behind the mirage of a coming medical wonderland, promoted by interested parties, completely other research objectives will be pursued that are to be kept out of public discussion as much as possible.

Perfect candor should rule in stem cell research. This requires that the scientist himself clearly establish the moral limits of his activity and declare what the consequences of research with embryonic stem cells really are. In the process, no one can escape the fact that, should one wish to use embryonic stem cells for "therapeutic purposes," the very techniques will be developed that will also be used for the cloning of human beings, the making of human-animal hybrids, the manipulation of germ lines, and the like–thus for everything other than therapeutic purposes. Any coverup or hypocrisy in this matter will very quickly reflect upon the research as a whole.

----

What Are Stem Cells, Exactly?

It is appropriate here to sketch the characteristics of stem cells, and the overthrow of some dogmas of developmental biology. Broadly speaking, a stem cell is one that–in the course of cell division and increase in the numbers of cells–is able to reproduce itself and also mature into various specialized types of cells. The stem cell with the greatest potential (totipotential) is the fertilized egg cell, which is capable of developing into a complete organism.

According to the usual–but actually very doubtful–explanation, the fertilized egg cell has totipotential up to the stage of division into eight cells, and in later stages the cells retain only "pluripotential." That is, they can form many different types of tissues, but not the complete organism. Embryonic stem cells–that is, those 50 cells within a blastocyst, which then continue to develop into the embryo proper–have this pluripotential. In the course of further specialization, stem cells of individual tissues are formed, such as that of the bone marrow, from which all the other kinds of blood cells develop.

Behind this description lies the conception that a linear process of differentiation is played out, in the development of the individual, toward increasingly "mature," specialized cells in the individual tissues, from totipotentiality to tissue specificity. This process is supposed to run only forward, but never backward. That is, as soon as a cell has reached a certain degree of "maturity," the way back to earlier stages of development is closed off. So it is evident that a stem cell’s capacity to perform is increasingly limited to specific functions, and it loses, correspondingly, the manifold capabilities still present in earlier developmental stages.

According to latest reports, however, this dogma of developmental biology does not hold. Evidently, tissue-specific stem cells have the ability–as has been impressively demonstrated in experiments with animals–to "transdifferentiate" themselves when in a different environment–that is, to take on the cell functions of the new tissue. Thus, neuronal stem cells of mice have transformed themselves into blood stem cells and produced blood cells. Indeed, there are indications of another capability of adult stem cells: Apparently they have the potential to be "reprogrammed." Not only can they adjust to the specific conditions of a new tissue environment, but they can even assume more generalized, earlier levels of development, so that it even appears possible that they become totipotent again.

Laboratory Virola in Ukraine has demonstrated that bone marrow stromal cells in culture are pluripotent–that is, they are able to differentiate into cells of liver, bone, fat, cartilage, and so on. Researchers at this laboratory have developed techniques to differentiate in vitro mouse bone marrow stromal cells into different types of neuronal and glial cells. The laboratory is seeking funds to develop similar methods for human bone marrow stromal cells.

----

Problems of ‘Therapeutic Cloning’

Until now, talk of a possible source of human replacement tissue has centered on embryonic stem cells, the production of which has been extremely controversial. They are a typical product of "consuming embryonic research," so called, because in obtaining them from a human embryo produced by artificial fertilization in vitro, the embryo is destroyed.

The most important research technique for which such embryos are obtained is "therapeutic cloning." In principle, a human egg cell is denucleated, that is, the DNA is removed, and in its place is put the nucleus of a somatic (body) cell. The egg cell is stimulated with a short electrical pulse, and it then develops into the blastocyst, from which stem cells can be removed. These are identical with those of the donor of the somatic cell nucleus.

Normally it goes unmentioned, that it is only a small step from this so-called "therapeutic cloning" (because, it is claimed, in this way a therapy for diseases can be developed) to what is called "reproductive cloning." The only difference is that the development of the embryo is not interrupted in the early blastocyst stage; instead the embryo is implanted in a uterus and a complete organism develops–an exact genetic copy of the donor. "Dolly," the first cloned sheep, was produced by this method, and here is the basis for the widespread fear that the same method that is used for "therapeutic cloning" can also be used for the selective breeding of humans.

In addition to the obvious moral consideration, there are still other serious disadvantages that make this path to the development of human "replacement parts" appear to be untenable.

The danger of tumors. So far there has been no solution to the problem of developing in the laboratory an unmistakable identifier for stem cells that can distinguish them unequivocally from cancer cells. For this reason, it is also not possible to produce sufficiently pure cell cultures from stem cells. So far, with embryonic mouse stem cells, a purity of only 80 percent has been achieved. That is in no way sufficient for cell transplantation as a human therapy. In a cell culture for therapeutic purposes, there must not be a single undifferentiated cell, since it can lead to unregulated growth, in this case to the formation of teratomas, a cancerous tumor derived from the germ layers. This problem would not be expected with adult stem cells, because of their greater differentiation.

Genetic instability. Only recently a further problem has emerged. Fundamental doubt of the suitability of embryonic stem cells for transplantation has come to the surface because of the genetic instability of cloned cells.

Cloned animals like Dolly give the outward appearance of full health, but the probability of their having numerous genetic defects is very high. Moreover, the entire cloning procedure is extremely ineffective. Most cloned animals die before birth, and of those born alive, not even half survive for three weeks. In the best case, there is a success rate of 3 to 4 percent.

One of the reasons for this high failure rate has now been discovered by the German scientist Rudolf Jaenisch at the Institute for Biomedical Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his colleague, Ryuzo Yanagimachi. Their conception is that in cloning–that is, when the nucleus of a somatic cell is inserted into a denucleated egg cell–the reprogramming of the genes does not proceed properly, so that not all of the genes that are necessary to the early phase of embryonic development, are activated. Even when cloned animals survive at all, probably every clone would have subtle genetic abnormalities that would frequently become noticeable only later in life.

Jaenisch performed his experiments with mice that had been cloned using embryonic stem cells in place of the somatic cells, which produces better results. But to his surprise, the reprogramming of the inserted genetic material by the embryonic cells proceeded in a very unregulated way. There were no two clones in which the same pattern of gene activation was found, and Jaenisch is convinced that the use of embryonic stem cells was clearly responsible.

What consequences follow from this for the therapeutic use of human embryonic stem cells–consequences that will in fact be multiplied through cloning–are not yet foreseeable.

Neuroblasts differentiated from bone marrow stromal cells by Laboratory Virola.

----

Whoever Would Cure, Must Use Adult Stem Cells

It has been known for about 30 years that stem cells are present in the tissue of the adult, but it was assumed that they could only form cells of a particular tissue. That is, reprogramming them was considered impossible. In recent years, however, pluripotent stem cells were discovered in various human tissues–in the spinal cord, in the brain, in the mesenchyme (connective tissue) of various organs, and in the blood of the umbilical cord. These pluripotent stem cells are capable of forming several cell types–principally blood, muscle, and nerve cells. It has been possible to recognize, select, and develop them to the point that they form mature cell types with the help of growth factors and regulating proteins.
This shows that in tissues of the body, adult stem cells possess a much greater potential for differentiation than previously assumed. This knowledge must be brought into the public consciousness with all possible emphasis. If stem cell research were really only meant for therapeutic uses, which it most obviously should be, adult stem cells would promise a very productive research field–and beyond that, a possibility, without moral objection, to discover fundamentals of the dynamics of tissue differentiation.

It has become clear from transplantation experiments with animals, that stem cells of a particular tissue can develop into cells of a completely different kind. Thus, bone marrow stem cells have been induced to become brain cells, but also liver cells.

Adult stem cells obviously have a universal program for division that is common to all the kinds of tissue stem cells, and makes them mutually interchangeable. This was discovered by Alexei Terskikh at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. He was able to prove that adult stem cells of blood-forming tissues, and of the brain, activate the same genes, in order to preserve their status as stem cells.

In May 2001, a further, spectacular experiment was reported, which was carried out on mice by scientists at Yale University. The researchers obtained stem cells from the bone marrow of male mice, and injected it into females whose own marrow had been destroyed by radioactive irradiation. Eleven months later, the male stem cells (identifiable through the male Y-chromosome) were found not only in the females’ bone marrow, but also in their blood, and in their gut, lung, and skin tissues.

If these observations are correct and are confirmed by other teams of scientists, science should concentrate on research with adult stem cells and renounce further experiments with the embryonic.

Human Treatments

Moreover, very promising treatments of serious diseases with adult stem cells have already been tried. The special advantage is that there are no rejection reactions, because the cells are from the same body.

Of longer standing is treatment with bone marrow stem cells. The treatment comes into play when, for example, a patient has lost his or her blood-forming tissue through radiation or high-dose chemotherapy. Previously removed bone marrow stem cells are then retransplanted, and are able to resume the formation of blood cells.

In 2001, however, a team of doctors at the Duesseldorf University Clinic carried out a treatment of very far-reaching consequences. For the first time, they treated a cardiac infarct patient with stem cells from his own body. The cardiologist, Prof. Bodo Eckehard Strauer, is sure that the stem cells from the patient’s bone marrow, after injection into the infarct zone, autonomously converted to heart muscle. The functioning of the severely damaged heart clearly improved within a few weeks.

Four days after the infarction, the doctors took bone marrow from the patient’s pelvis using local anesthesia. The stem cells in the marrow were concentrated outside of the body and implanted in the infarct area the next day with a special technique via a coronary artery. However, the doctors could not yet take cardiac tissue to prove definitively that the implanted blood stem cells had converted to heart muscle cells. But, according to Strauer, there is no other way to explain the marked improvement in the patient’s condition. After this first successful operation, six more patients have already been treated with their own stem cells, with similarly positive results.

There are also reports of successful treatments with adult stem cells in cases of Crohn’s disease (a chronic infection of the gut), thalassemia (a blood disease), and a rare skin disease. And–despite the fact that basic research with adult stem cells is in its earliest beginnings and is in no way being promoted with urgency–there have been a growing number of reports lately of experiments with animals, from which it emerges that adult stem cells can successfully transform themselves into differentiated cells of organs of many kinds.

In contrast, reports of successful conversions of embryonic stem cells are very infrequent and cautious. Thus, we find in Science of Dec. 1, 2000 (Vol. 290, pp. 1672-1674): "In contrast, the human embryonic stem cells and fetal germ cells that made headlines in November 1998 because they can, in theory, develop into any cell type have so far produced relatively modest results. Only a few papers and meeting reports have emerged from the handful of labs that work with human pluripotent cells. . . . The work suggests that it will not be simple to produce the pure populations of certain cell types that would be required for safe and reliable cell therapies. . . ."

This is the restrained language used by established science to describe a truly disastrous set of results.

There are, of course, still substantial problems to be overcome, even with adult stem cells: They are relatively rare, and are hard to find with the techniques used so far. They are also not very easy to culture outside of the body. It was therefore an important advance that Australian researchers of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research have now found a way to isolate nerve stem cells with "extreme purity" from the brains of mice. In Nature of August 16, 2001 (Vol. 412, pp. 736-739), they reported obtaining a culture of 80 percent purity, compared to a previous rate of 5 percent at best.

It is now urgently necessary to tackle the research in precisely this direction, in order to find out the exact conditions under which the differentiation of stem cells comes about and how, in detail, it proceeds. Only by this morally unassailable route will it be possible to develop new therapies for serious, heretofore incurable diseases, and beyond that, to improve our understanding of the development of life itself.

Wolfgang Lillge is the Editor-in-Chief of the German-language Fusion magazine. His article appeared in the Sept.-October 2001 issue of Fusion, and was translated into English by David Cherry.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

First off, for me the moral debate in stem cell research is lost in the quagmire and confusion over embryonic vs. adult stem cells. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that it's hard to make the argument that a blastocyst is human life.

That said, the whole issue of cloning carries with it a ton of interesting moral questions. Is a clone human? How much of a person can you clone before it has rights?

Anyway, currently I think the technology is moving in about the best direction it can move it. By shying away from embryonic cells and sticking with adult ones, they are avoiding some of these more complex personhood issues. Even though I think this is a ham-fisted approach to segregating the work, it is at least serving as a proxy for the "what is man?" issues that are morally very tricky.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yorick (Post 1243097)

doesn't kill human life

Stopped reading there, starting a "discussion" with bias is asking for trouble.

Enjoy your flame war :)

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis (Post 1243109)

I'm of the opinion it is human life (it's not reptilian life for example... and time is the fourth dimension in which we exist, meaning all humans are embryos within their timeline)... but that's not the point. The point is it's divisive to use embryonic stem cells, while there's no moral problem with adult ones. It's seems a no-brainer to me.

Quote:

That said, the whole issue of cloning carries with it a ton of interesting moral questions. Is a clone human? How much of a person can you clone before it has rights?

Of course a cloned human is human. Is the identical twin of a slightly older twin a human? The whole weird idea that somehow cloning yourself is some way to live again is bizarre. It's just like making an identical twin. They're a whole other unique human, but with the same DNA code as someone else.

Quote:

Anyway, currently I think the technology is moving in about the best direction it can move it. By shying away from embryonic cells and sticking with adult ones, they are avoiding some of these more complex personhood issues. Even though I think this is a ham-fisted approach to segregating the work, it is at least serving as a proxy for the "what is man?" issues that are morally very tricky.

I like to draw very clear lines to make "tricky" things very simple. Maybe it's the musician in me. Break the concerto down to it's individual notes, fix the bad note, then scroll back out.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hivetyrant (Post 1243122)

Stopped reading there, starting a "discussion" with bias is asking for trouble.

Enjoy your flame war :)

What human doesn't have bias?

Read the article bro. It makes what you're talking about a moot point.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Well, here's a spot where you and I just might disagree quite a bit, Yorick. Let me address some of the miscommunication and slippery-slope arguments in this piece.

Quote:

The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over biotechnology and human genetics: Should we use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells for future medical therapies? Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life.
Aside from the blatant inflammatory language, this neglects to mention that the blastocyst stage starts around day 3-5 after fertilization and runs to around day 12, when the blastocyst attaches to the endometrium.

Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity.
Not yet proven. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost all of the 288 (I think) different cell types. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can become some of the different cell types... typically all of those in the organ they came from. IOW, to get a liver, you need liver stem cells. It is much harder for adult stem cells to become something radically different, although new research suggests it might be somewhat easier. Think brand new modelling clay compared to some that's been around for many, many years.

Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).
And adult stem cells have been used for 40+ years, while embryonic stem cells have only been used in the last ten or so. Studies are now on-going to investigate them more... let's compare the track records at the same age, shall we?

Stem cells are of wide interest for medicine, because they have the potential, under suitable conditions, to develop into almost all of the different types of cells. They should therefore be able to repair damaged or defective tissues (for example, destroyed insulin-producing cells in the pancreas). Many of the so-called degenerative diseases, for which there are as yet no effective therapies, could then be alleviated or healed.
Perfectly agreed. And some stem cells are more flexible than others.

It is remarkable that in the debate–often carried on with little competence–nice dig! the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence.
Interesting opinion... love to see some documentation to back it up

Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today–cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth.
Same is true for adult stem cells... although the usual prediction, I believe, is that they *MAY* cure, not that they *WILL* cure. Of course, when you're trying to secure funding, you may have to promise the moon.

Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems.
I don't agree with that statement on either side. Also an opinioin statement.

On closer inspection, however, the much extolled vision of the future turns out to be a case of completely empty promises: Given the elementary state of research today, it is by no means yet foreseeable, whether even one of the hoped-for treatments can be realized.
Ya know, that's the basis of research... and without doing it, you don't learn any more. Edison took 10,000 tries to perfect the light bulb... should he have stopped because of his elementary research?

Basically, such promised cures are a deliberate deception, for behind the mirage of a coming medical wonderland, promoted by interested parties, completely other research objectives will be pursued that are to be kept out of public discussion as much as possible.
Don't forget about the boogeyman in the corner. Couldn't this statement be used equally well by both sides?

Perfect candor should rule in stem cell research. This requires that the scientist himself clearly establish the moral limits of his activity and declare what the consequences of research with embryonic stem cells really are.
Candor in research... definitely agreeable. Moral limits... as long as mine agree with yours, right? Or whose limits are the "correct" ones? As for consequences... I am not so sure that they're known until the research is completed. Hypotheses, certainly. Expectation and prediction are a large part of the scientific process.

In the process, no one can escape the fact that, should one wish to use embryonic stem cells for "therapeutic purposes," the very techniques will be developed that will also be used for the cloning of human beings, the making of human-animal hybrids, the manipulation of germ lines, and the like–thus for everything other than therapeutic purposes. Any coverup or hypocrisy in this matter will very quickly reflect upon the research as a whole.
Oh, please. Slippery slope... embryonic stem cell research leads to cloning, animal hybrids, and germ manipulation? In the same vein, drilling for water leads to death, since people can drown in the stuff. Or giving my ten-year-old son a hammer means that he will use it to smash in someone's head. Of course, should he do so, that will reflect poorly on hammers...

----

What Are Stem Cells, Exactly?

It is appropriate here to sketch the characteristics of stem cells, and the overthrow of some dogmas of developmental biology. Broadly speaking, a stem cell is one that–in the course of cell division and increase in the numbers of cells–is able to reproduce itself and also mature into various specialized types of cells. The stem cell with the greatest potential (totipotential) is the fertilized egg cell, which is capable of developing into a complete organism.
Hmmm... seems like a sleight of hand move. I do not know if a fertilized egg (whether it's a cell or not) is considered to be a stem cell.

According to the usual–but actually very doubtful–explanation, the fertilized egg cell has totipotential up to the stage of division into eight cells,
which lasts, BTW, for less than two days

and in later stages the cells retain only "pluripotential." That is, they can form many different types of tissues, but not the complete organism. Embryonic stem cells–that is, those 50 cells within a blastocyst, which then continue to develop into the embryo proper–have this pluripotential. In the course of further specialization, stem cells of individual tissues are formed, such as that of the bone marrow, from which all the other kinds of blood cells develop.
Besides, twinning can take place up to 14 days after fertilization, or 9 days after the initial blastocyst is formed. Isn't that development into a complete organism?

Behind this description lies the conception that a linear process of differentiation is played out, in the development of the individual, toward increasingly "mature," specialized cells in the individual tissues, from totipotentiality to tissue specificity. This process is supposed to run only forward, but never backward. That is, as soon as a cell has reached a certain degree of "maturity," the way back to earlier stages of development is closed off. So it is evident that a stem cell’s capacity to perform is increasingly limited to specific functions, and it loses, correspondingly, the manifold capabilities still present in earlier developmental stages.

According to latest reports, however, this dogma of developmental biology does not hold. Evidently, tissue-specific stem cells have the ability–as has been impressively demonstrated in experiments with animals–to "transdifferentiate" themselves when in a different environment–that is, to take on the cell functions of the new tissue. Thus, neuronal stem cells of mice have transformed themselves into blood stem cells and produced blood cells. Indeed, there are indications of another capability of adult stem cells: Apparently they have the potential to be "reprogrammed." Not only can they adjust to the specific conditions of a new tissue environment, but they can even assume more generalized, earlier levels of development, so that it even appears possible that they become totipotent again.
And I look forward to more research on this. Oh, wait... it's just basic research. Better stop it...

Laboratory Virola in Ukraine has demonstrated that bone marrow stromal cells in culture are pluripotent–that is, they are able to differentiate into cells of liver, bone, fat, cartilage, and so on. Researchers at this laboratory have developed techniques to differentiate in vitro mouse bone marrow stromal cells into different types of neuronal and glial cells. The laboratory is seeking funds to develop similar methods for human bone marrow stromal cells.
I'm all in favor of research... all research.
----

Problems of ‘Therapeutic Cloning’

Until now, talk of a possible source of human replacement tissue has centered on embryonic stem cells, the production of which has been extremely controversial. They are a typical product of "consuming embryonic research," so called, because in obtaining them from a human embryo produced by artificial fertilization in vitro, the embryo is destroyed.
That is true. And the underlying question is simple... just what is that three-day-old embryo? Once we have a thorough answer to that...

The most important research technique for which such embryos are obtained is "therapeutic cloning." In principle, a human egg cell is denucleated, that is, the DNA is removed, and in its place is put the nucleus of a somatic (body) cell. The egg cell is stimulated with a short electrical pulse, and it then develops into the blastocyst, from which stem cells can be removed. These are identical with those of the donor of the somatic cell nucleus.
Don't know enough to argue with the science. But the interchanging of terms (DNA for nucleus) makes me hesitant to blindly accept the words... and blind acceptance is not always good.

Normally it goes unmentioned, that it is only a small step from this so-called "therapeutic cloning" (because, it is claimed, in this way a therapy for diseases can be developed) to what is called "reproductive cloning." The only difference is that the development of the embryo is not interrupted in the early blastocyst stage; instead the embryo is implanted in a uterus and a complete organism develops–an exact genetic copy of the donor.
A small step? Perhaps. An inevitable step? No. This is, IMHO, a separate issue, akin to saying that the challenge with giving pencils to five year olds is that they might write things we don't like. Has nothing to do with the tool, but the application of it.

"Dolly," the first cloned sheep, was produced by this method, and here is the basis for the widespread fear that the same method that is used for "therapeutic cloning" can also be used for the selective breeding of humans.
Ermmm... wouldn't that be "reproductive cloning", as you stated above? Let's keep the terms straight, please.

In addition to the obvious moral consideration, there are still other serious disadvantages that make this path to the development of human "replacement parts" appear to be untenable.
Opinions and postulations. Let's get to statements of fact.

The danger of tumors. So far there has been no solution to the problem of developing in the laboratory an unmistakable identifier for stem cells that can distinguish them unequivocally from cancer cells.
Hmmm... guess we'd better stop trying to find one then. After all, that's not the purpose of research, is it?

For this reason, it is also not possible to produce sufficiently pure cell cultures from stem cells. So far, with embryonic mouse stem cells, a purity of only 80 percent has been achieved.
Interestingly, adult stem cells are actually less pure than embryonic cells, since the incidence of cancers, disease, sun exposure, and other things is so much greater...

That is in no way sufficient for cell transplantation as a human therapy.
Yet trials are underway right now. Hmmm... they started, knowing they were doomed to failure?

In a cell culture for therapeutic purposes, there must not be a single undifferentiated cell, since it can lead to unregulated growth, in this case to the formation of teratomas, a cancerous tumor derived from the germ layers. This problem would not be expected with adult stem cells, because of their greater differentiation.
Wait a minute... cells with *greater* differentiation will have *less* differentiation? Will not have any unidifferentiated cells? How does that math work?

Genetic instability. Only recently a further problem has emerged. Fundamental doubt of the suitability of embryonic stem cells for transplantation has come to the surface because of the genetic instability of cloned cells.
Unclear if this is about therapeutic or reproductive cloning. But I guess that per your requirements, we might as well stop this line of inquiry since there's only basic research, and it revealed problems.

Cloned animals like Dolly give the outward appearance of full health, but the probability of their having numerous genetic defects is very high. Moreover, the entire cloning procedure is extremely ineffective. Most cloned animals die before birth, and of those born alive, not even half survive for three weeks. In the best case, there is a success rate of 3 to 4 percent.
Again, you stated that Dolly was from reproductive cloning, not therapeutic cloning (your terms, not mine).

One of the reasons for this high failure rate has now been discovered by the German scientist Rudolf Jaenisch at the Institute for Biomedical Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his colleague, Ryuzo Yanagimachi. Their conception is that in cloning–that is, when the nucleus of a somatic cell is inserted into a denucleated egg cell–the reprogramming of the genes does not proceed properly, so that not all of the genes that are necessary to the early phase of embryonic development, are activated. Even when cloned animals survive at all, probably every clone would have subtle genetic abnormalities that would frequently become noticeable only later in life.
Just realized that I'm having a harder time following the link from tissues regrown via stem cells to full organism cloning. Are you still following that earlier slippery slope?

Jaenisch performed his experiments with mice that had been cloned using embryonic stem cells in place of the somatic cells, which produces better results. But to his surprise, the reprogramming of the inserted genetic material by the embryonic cells proceeded in a very unregulated way. There were no two clones in which the same pattern of gene activation was found, and Jaenisch is convinced that the use of embryonic stem cells was clearly responsible.
Hmmmm... "Convinced"... I can't think of another way. Not "I've tested and confirmed..." Sounds like follow-up testing is required to confirm a suspicion. That *is* what the scientific method is about, isn't it?

What consequences follow from this for the therapeutic use of human embryonic stem cells–consequences that will in fact be multiplied through cloning–are not yet foreseeable.
Absolutely agree. No idea what will happen... good *OR* bad.

Neuroblasts differentiated from bone marrow stromal cells by Laboratory Virola.
Assume this pointed to a picture...
----

Whoever Would Cure, Must Use Adult Stem Cells

It has been known for about 30 years that stem cells are present in the tissue of the adult, but it was assumed that they could only form cells of a particular tissue. That is, reprogramming them was considered impossible. In recent years, however, pluripotent stem cells were discovered in various human tissues–in the spinal cord, in the brain, in the mesenchyme (connective tissue) of various organs, and in the blood of the umbilical cord. These pluripotent stem cells are capable of forming several cell types–principally blood, muscle, and nerve cells. It has been possible to recognize, select, and develop them to the point that they form mature cell types with the help of growth factors and regulating proteins.
Actually, research has shown that if you blast those adult stem cells with the proper viruses and such, you can knock the pluripotency back into them. They don't take to it kindly.

This shows that in tissues of the body, adult stem cells possess a much greater potential for differentiation than previously assumed. This knowledge must be brought into the public consciousness with all possible emphasis. If stem cell research were really only meant for therapeutic uses, which it most obviously should be, adult stem cells would promise a very productive research field–and beyond that, a possibility, without moral objection, to discover fundamentals of the dynamics of tissue differentiation.
Don't disagree. Let's investigate all sides, shall we?

It has become clear from transplantation experiments with animals, that stem cells of a particular tissue can develop into cells of a completely different kind. Thus, bone marrow stem cells have been induced to become brain cells, but also liver cells.
Preliminary tests, but not enough to lead to a blanket statement. I'll attribute "It has become clear" to translation from German

Adult stem cells obviously have a universal program for division that is common to all the kinds of tissue stem cells, and makes them mutually interchangeable. This was discovered by Alexei Terskikh at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. He was able to prove that adult stem cells of blood-forming tissues, and of the brain, activate the same genes, in order to preserve their status as stem cells.
Okay... all stem cells can divide. That's part of the criteria that makes them stem cells, though... kind of like saying all yellow signs have yellow on them.

In May 2001, a further, spectacular experiment was reported, which was carried out on mice by scientists at Yale University. The researchers obtained stem cells from the bone marrow of male mice, and injected it into females whose own marrow had been destroyed by radioactive irradiation. Eleven months later, the male stem cells (identifiable through the male Y-chromosome) were found not only in the females’ bone marrow, but also in their blood, and in their gut, lung, and skin tissues.
Interesting. Don't know if that means that the male stem cells turned into these other stem cells, or if they infected other stem cells. Be nice to know that.

If these observations are correct and are confirmed by other teams of scientists, science should concentrate on research with adult stem cells and renounce further experiments with the embryonic.
Agree on the first point, disagree on the second.

Human Treatments

Moreover, very promising treatments of serious diseases with adult stem cells have already been tried. The special advantage is that there are no rejection reactions, because the cells are from the same body.
Also interesting. And transplants have also been done with foreign cells, also without reaction.

Of longer standing is treatment with bone marrow stem cells. The treatment comes into play when, for example, a patient has lost his or her blood-forming tissue through radiation or high-dose chemotherapy. Previously removed bone marrow stem cells are then retransplanted, and are able to resume the formation of blood cells.
Okay... and the point is? If those retransplanted cells might also have the original cancer in them, should that mean we should stop that too?

In 2001, however, a team of doctors at the Duesseldorf University Clinic carried out a treatment of very far-reaching consequences. For the first time, they treated a cardiac infarct patient with stem cells from his own body. The cardiologist, Prof. Bodo Eckehard Strauer, is sure that the stem cells from the patient’s bone marrow, after injection into the infarct zone, autonomously converted to heart muscle. The functioning of the severely damaged heart clearly improved within a few weeks.
Promising. But I don't follow the scientific links of cause/effect. "Is sure that...?" I "am sure that" I sent that email to my boss yesterday... Again, I'd like to see more tests and research.

Four days after the infarction, the doctors took bone marrow from the patient’s pelvis using local anesthesia. The stem cells in the marrow were concentrated outside of the body and implanted in the infarct area the next day with a special technique via a coronary artery. However, the doctors could not yet take cardiac tissue to prove definitively that the implanted blood stem cells had converted to heart muscle cells. But, according to Strauer, there is no other way to explain the marked improvement in the patient’s condition. After this first successful operation, six more patients have already been treated with their own stem cells, with similarly positive results.
Hey, look at that... more tests and research! Me likey... but "there is no other way to explain" doesn't mean there is no other explanation. Be nice if it works, though... I'm in favor of doing it some more.

There are also reports of successful treatments with adult stem cells in cases of Crohn’s disease (a chronic infection of the gut), thalassemia (a blood disease), and a rare skin disease. And–despite the fact that basic research with adult stem cells is in its earliest beginnings and is in no way being promoted with urgency–there have been a growing number of reports lately of experiments with animals, from which it emerges that adult stem cells can successfully transform themselves into differentiated cells of organs of many kinds.
More research! Keep it coming!

In contrast, reports of successful conversions of embryonic stem cells are very infrequent and cautious. Thus, we find in Science of Dec. 1, 2000 (Vol. 290, pp. 1672-1674): "In contrast, the human embryonic stem cells and fetal germ cells that made headlines in November 1998 because they can, in theory, develop into any cell type have so far produced relatively modest results. Only a few papers and meeting reports have emerged from the handful of labs that work with human pluripotent cells. . . . The work suggests that it will not be simple to produce the pure populations of certain cell types that would be required for safe and reliable cell therapies. . . ."
Note the date.... ten years ago. Two years after research started... IOW, "We don't know much yet. And it's going to be hard." I *think* the easy research has already been done....

This is the restrained language used by established science to describe a truly disastrous set of results.
I'll buy that. Ten years ago. That's relevant today in what way?

There are, of course, still substantial problems to be overcome, even with adult stem cells: They are relatively rare, and are hard to find with the techniques used so far. They are also not very easy to culture outside of the body. It was therefore an important advance that Australian researchers of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research have now found a way to isolate nerve stem cells with "extreme purity" from the brains of mice. In Nature of August 16, 2001 (Vol. 412, pp. 736-739), they reported obtaining a culture of 80 percent purity, compared to a previous rate of 5 percent at best.
Hmmm... just a few paragraphs ago, you decried embryonic stem cells for being barely able to hit 80%, but now 80% is fantastic? And ignoring the fact that this research is nine years old, the fact that it took adult stem cell research 30 years to get where embryonic got in 12 is pretty promising, don't you think?

It is now urgently necessary to tackle the research in precisely this direction, in order to find out the exact conditions under which the differentiation of stem cells comes about and how, in detail, it proceeds. Only by this morally unassailable route will it be possible to develop new therapies for serious, heretofore incurable diseases, and beyond that, to improve our understanding of the development of life itself.
Agreed. Research. But on both fronts.

Wolfgang Lillge is the Editor-in-Chief of the German-language Fusion magazine. His article appeared in the Sept.-October 2001 issue of Fusion, and was translated into English by David Cherry.

Heh... and I thought Yorick's original post of this was long :D Wonder if there's a limit...

Article read. And responded to.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Thanks Bung, will read in detail asap. Appreciate it.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

I'll abstain from comment, due to personal ignorance on the subject. It is a hot one though. I really should know more...

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

The djinni is out of the bottle, and no amount of regulation will put it back in. If we (the US) don't do the research, someone else will.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElfBane (Post 1243144)

The djinni is out of the bottle, and no amount of regulation will put it back in. If we (the US) don't do the research, someone else will.

Right. This is my fear too.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

How many are actually reading the article before responding btw?

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yorick (Post 1243163)

How many are actually reading the article before responding btw?

There's an article?!

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

I confess to reading, and to researching my response. This isn't the first time I've thought through stem cell research, and I'm sure it won't be the last. I learned a few more things this time, and I expect I'll repeat that process time and again.

As for the thought that "if we don't do it, someone else will"... well, I admit that certainly appears to be true. I read an article today about the Chinese investing a ton of money in DNA sequencers that will enable them to establish a serious genetic research industry.

But the fact that someone else will do it first isn't justification to do something... logically extending from that, everyone you know is going to die, so might as well make them die first. The "It was going to happen anyway" defense is pretty weak.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

How many are actually reading the article before responding btw?

Not me!
..too long and the font color was annoying.

I think it's too complex an issue, for one article to give me all the answers. And I don't think we have all the answers. And, is Wolfgang Lillge objective, or bias.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

It certainly is a complex issue. And like many of the best issues (so to speak), there's no clear-cut simple right answer. At least, I don't think there is :)

That doesn't mean there's no right or wrong answer... it means that you can't arrive at the answer quickly, with a snap decision. You do need to sift through everything and weigh the alternatives for yourself.

For me, the issue comes down to a few facts:

Embryonic stem cells can automatically become almost any cell in the body (called pluripotency). Tissue stem cells (adult, placental, etc.) can become any cell in the organ they came from (called multipotency). Recent advances appear to allow you to force tissue stem cells back to pluripotency. This is promising...
When embryonic stem cells are taken from a 5-6 day old embryo (which contains 70-100 cells and is no larger than a grain of sand), the embryo is destroyed. When tissue stem cells are taken, the tissue remains. The key question... is that 5-6 day old 100 cell grain of sand alive? Is it human?
One of the sources of embryos is fertilization clinics. Far more embryos are prepared than are used, and eventually, something has to be done with the unused embryos. They may be kept in storage in perpetuity, but many are eventually destroyed. This, in my mind, presents the key grey (or gray ;) ) area... should they be destroyed outright, or should their embryonic stem cells be harvested to allow research that should ultimately benefit us all?
That does open the door to abuse... the thought of people specifically creating embryos so they can sell their stem cells is repugnant to me. But do you stop the practice, or stop the abuse of the practice?

One article cannot (and should not!) give you all the answers. Likewise, one opinion her cannot and should not tell you what to do. However, examining all viewpoints will allow you to make up your own mind.

And that, to me, is one of the most important things.

*edit* I'm not sure those are all of my important facts... I may be forgetting a couple. But I think those are the key issues

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bungleau (Post 1243171)

As for the thought that "if we don't do it, someone else will"... well, I admit that certainly appears to be true. I read an article today about the Chinese investing a ton of money in DNA sequencers that.

Trouble is you can use that to justify any morally heinous activity. Eugenics for example.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hindsight (Post 1243174)

So click on the link. There are pictures there too!

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

From what I'm reading, adult stem cell research is MORE effective than embryonic, has PROVEN scientific breakthroughs (unlike embryonic stem cell research) and doesn't destroy a human life in the process, thus having no moral concerns.

I'm not really seeing this factor addressed in the replies I'm reading (so far). All the arguments about medical breakthroughs, scientific advances etc. are behind ADULT stem cell research, NOT embryonic.

It seems to me, embryonic research is being USED as part of a broader initiative to undermine the sanctity of human life, rather than actually make medical breakthroughs - considering the aforementioned superiority of adult stem cell research. It also seems to be used to paint those against embryonic research as "anti-science" etc. to de-validate say, pro-life positions in general as being anti-science anti human welfare etc. despite the fact that science proves human life in-utero (the ultrasound) and the welfare of the mother's health (mental and physical) is part of a pro-life position.

I'd prefer to see just the facts discussed. Rape victims? 80%-84% carry to term as having the child substantially increases healing from the rape for example.
Choice? Most women report not HAVING a choice other than to abort. Meaning society and inertia pressure women into having no-choice.
Science? As said, science proves it's human life. It was enough for NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson (75,000 abortions to his name). Google him and read his story.

Without meaning to actually discuss abortion, I'm pointing out that the smoke-screen surrounding embryonic stem cell research appears to follow a similar pattern: ignore the scientific facts whilst using emotional arguments to misrepresent the opposing point of view.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yorick (Post 1243179)

Trouble is you can use that to justify any morally heinous activity. Eugenics for example.

Agreed. Hence the next paragraph in my post...

Quote:

But the fact that someone else will do it first isn't justification to do something... logically extending from that, everyone you know is going to die, so might as well make them die first. The "It was going to happen anyway" defense is pretty weak.

You can justify anything from "It would have happened anyway". That's not a justification in my book.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yorick (Post 1243181)

The difference between tissue research and embryonic research is that tissue research has a 20-year head start. More studies have been done, more things have been tried, and more things have been successful. And more things have failed, too.

Embryonic research is relatively new, starting around 1998. I wonder (and I truly don't know the answer)... how effective was tissue research back when it was twelve years old? How long did it take tissue research to develop these things we're hearing about today?

I find it interesting that after 30+ years, scientists are trying to make tissue stem cells behave like embryonic stem cells. Why didn't they do and figure that out earlier? Perhaps because it was too costly, expensive, and difficult. Perhaps because they hadn't thought about it until someone said "Hmmm.... wonder if we can make *these* behave like *those*?". I just don't know.

Quote:

It seems to me, embryonic research is being USED as part of a broader initiative to undermine the sanctity of human life, rather than actually make medical breakthroughs - considering the aforementioned superiority of adult stem cell research. It also seems to be used to paint those against embryonic research as "anti-science" etc. to de-validate say, pro-life positions in general as being anti-science anti human welfare etc. despite the fact that science proves human life in-utero (the ultrasound) and the welfare of the mother's health (mental and physical) is part of a pro-life position.

Again, the time line. I'm unaware of anyone behind stem cell research who says "Ignore tissue research... do embryonic instead". Rather, I'm seeing different people investigating different paths. And those who are researching are encouraging others to research... whether on their own path or a different one.

Quote:

I'd prefer to see just the facts discussed. Rape victims? 80%-84% carry to term as having the child substantially increases healing from the rape for example.

I find this statistic... interesting. What healing does it increase? How so? how much? Info, please :)

Quote:

Choice? Most women report not HAVING a choice other than to abort. Meaning society and inertia pressure women into having no-choice.

Again, I find this interesting. I haven't seen the research/polls (and am willing to read them) for whether or not there is a choice. I'm also interested in what leads to your conclusion, that society and inertia pressure them. Is that in the polls as well? Eager to read, I am... ;)

On another front, carrying an unwanted child to term and putting it up for adoption is not such a simple decision. A large part of the reality is that said child may sit for years waiting for someone to decide they would like to adopt them. There's a long waiting list to adopt healthy Caucasian babies. If you want a non-Caucasian child, or a child with physical or health disorders and challenges, the line is much shorter.

Not as many people are willing to choose a child who starts with disabilities, handicaps, and challenges... would you willingly sentence a child to 18 years of shuttling around from foster home to foster home, hoping they don't run into an abusive situation, until they're 18 and kicked out onto the streets? But that's another topic.

Quote:

Science? As said, science proves it's human life. It was enough for NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson (75,000 abortions to his name). Google him and read his story.

Will read. Once the definition of human life is agreed upon, everything becomes easy. I think.

Quote:

Without meaning to actually discuss abortion, I'm pointing out that the smoke-screen surrounding embryonic stem cell research appears to follow a similar pattern: ignore the scientific facts whilst using emotional arguments to misrepresent the opposing point of view.

That statement appears true on both sides....

Here's a link to the Michael J Fox Foundation's position paper on stem cell research. For those unaware, Fox has early onset Parkinson's disease, and his foundation supports finding a cure. Stem cell research is one of the potential avenues that they support.

I need to run... will be back later, undoubtedly.

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bungleau (Post 1243187)

Agreed. Hence the next paragraph in my post...

You can justify anything from "It would have happened anyway". That's not a justification in my book.

Nice one. Missed it somehow... ?

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bungleau (Post 1243189)

[color=yellow]
Here's a link to the Michael J Fox Foundation's position paper on stem cell research. For those unaware, Fox has early onset Parkinson's disease, and his foundation supports finding a cure. Stem cell research is one of the potential avenues that they support.

I need to run... will be back later, undoubtedly.

Were you aware of this conversation with Michael J. Fox:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDFJOzu9SyM

"The Stem Cell Debate is over".

Re: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research

I was not... so I watched.

I wouldn't consider that an interview, at least not the part that's shown. Note that Fox doesn't actually say anything in that clip... it's all Oz postulating his position. I would be extremely interested in the entire clip, rather than a carefully snipped piece.

Interestingly, I can find no copies of that show that include anything other than Oz talking and Oprah's one comment. Perhaps I need to find a better way to search through Youtube... any helpers?

That aside...

He's a "notable medical expert"... in what area? Would you ask an orthodontist (who is a medical expert) for detailed info about how to treat your glaucoma? Personally, I'd go to a medical expert in that field... Oz's background is cardiothoracic, not genetics or whatever umbrella category stem cell research might fall in to.
Loosely quoted, "the problem with embryonic stem cells is that they can become any cell in the body and can't be controlled... any cell... including cancer." (around 1:10 or so in the video). Embryonic stem cells tend to take on the characteristics of the cells around them... so place them next to a cancer, and guess what the plan might be? Of course, the same thing would also hold true for tissue stem cells, including induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), which are tissue cells that have been forced back to embryonic state. But wait... since they're now pluripotent and can become anything, wouldn't they be subject to the same issue?
In talking about iPS, note that they were first "discovered" in 2007... he makes it sound like they are brand new in Aplril of 2009. Perhaps...
He claims that iPS will not be as prone to cancer. I have seen nothing to support that, and would welcome supporting info. He also claims that since they're your own cells, they will be less likely to be rejected. That's absolutely true. However, it's not a blanket "Will never be rejected" statement, which he appears to make. But the odds are indeed much greater.
I love all the "I think" and "I believe" statements... I'd love "My research has shown" statements even more.

IOW, Yorick, I could accomplish the same thing by creating a video of me explaining why Unions are a serious problem (just to cross threads ever so slightly ;) ) with you in the clip, not let you say anything, and then use it to further my own position about unions. An interesting conjecture, but without info to back it up, I'm... not buying into it fully.

I don't disagree that there is exciting research going on... there is. But there are whole other issues that remain to be discovered. Quoting from the MJFF position paper:

Quote:

Although scientists have been able to coax ES cells, iPS cells and adult stem cells to become dopamine neurons, whether these engineered dopamine neurons are sufficiently 'authentic'— that is, whether they express everything natural ones do — is unclear and difficult to measure. To date, scientists have had the most success generating robust dopamine neurons, in both quantity and quality, using ES cells.

Note the wording... doesn't say that one is better or worse than the other, and doesn't suggest that it will never change. It states that so far, the best results (as measured) come from embryonic cells. Will someone find ways to make iPS cells generate equally good or perhaps better results? I hope so.

As a side note, I've recently read all three of Fox's books. Not for this particular debate... I just picked the first one from the biography shelf at the library, then saw the others and continued. Since retiring from acting, he has thrown himself into his foundation and trying to find a cure for the disease which is slowly and surely killing him.

He made what I consider a very profound statement about his own knowledge of Parkinsons. Since I don't have the book in front of me, I can't give an exact quote, but the gist of it was that when he started his foundation, he knew a few things, but was certainly a non-expert in the area of Parkinson's and its research. Now, however, he can sit in a meeting of the expert, know what's going on, and have reasonable dialogue with them about it.

My take is that I'll wager that he knows as much about the research that Oz is talking about, and probably more. Lots more.