The Embryonic Debate

You're a little behind on where the most promising stem cell research lies. After a decade of embryonic stem cell research, no therapies have been approved; whereas there are numerous approved therapies using adult stem cells. Recently it has been discovered that adult stem cells can be made pluripotent fairly simply, which then behave just like embryonic stem cells. Setting aside the potential moral issues, why is it so important to throw funding at a controversial area of research that has yielded so little?

laurenra7: I think you missed a key part of the article. Embryonic Stem Cell research hasn't shown any promise in the last 10 years because it has been all but outlawed in the last 10 years. It has been virtually impossible to do any research in this area (at least in the USA).

The point is the Embryonic Stem Cell treatments have the potential to be a far more powerful tool than any other Stem Cell treatments. Due to an inability to do the research however they have been unable to make any advancement in this field.

Michael J. Fox talks a fair amount about the ban on Stem Cell Research in his new book.

"Setting aside the potential moral issues, why is it so important to throw funding at a controversial area of research that has yielded so little?"

Its importance isn't much more than yet another step in our governmental culture of political move/countermove. Obama built his campaign on the concept of reversing the policies of the Bush administration; remember, we voted for "change"? Unfortunately, that sort of political thinking fails to salvage the portions of Bush's policy that actually make sense. Fortunately, cooler heads in the NIH know about the limited uses and lack of success from embryonic stem cell research, which coupled with the ethical concerns results in their strict control of the funding.

I would actually consider this one of the bright spots in the way our governmental system was designed; checks and balances are at work, aiding us in getting issues resolved correctly regardless of political bickering.

@ Eggman002,

Actually embryonic stem cell research was never banned in the US, only the government funding for it was. It's just interesting though, no private company stepped up to fund research, i wonder why? Pluripotent stem cells really are embryonic stem cells, even when they are made from adult cells. So in truth there is no real reason to use embryo's to derive embryonic stem cells.

One other thing, just as the article claims, Clinton banned government funding for embryonic stem cell research, so it was over 10 years ago.

Eggman002, embryonic stem cell research has been ongoing in the U.S. (and federally funded for the last 8 years) and around the world. Despite claims for its greater promise, just like nuclear fusion, not much has come of it yet, and that "not much" isn't for lack of funding or research. Once a stem cell line is established it can be re-used and recreated indefinitely. There were about 2 dozen pre-existing lines that were cleared for federal funding back in 2001, but research has not produced the wealth of therapies that have come from adult stem cell research. Again, it is not for lack of funding.

Adult stem cell research has produced some legitimate therapies. Embryonic stem cell research has not...yet. Which would you throw money at?

There are greater difficulties involved with embryonic stem cell research, and perhaps in time they will be overcome and useful therapies will emerge, but currently the money's on adult stem cell research.

Also embryonic stem cell research is constrained by moral issues because destroying human embryos for research is highly controversial. Luckily the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells bypasses the moral issues and may be the most promising avenue of research--if they indeed behave like embryonic stem cells.

Strangely, despite this breakthrough, many still complain about being hamstrung by the federal government. If you examine what is allowed and what the government will fund, it becomes clear that the reasoning of the complainers is not based so much on the realities of embryonic stem cell research as on their own indignation that anyone would limit research for moral reasons. That's why I said, "setting the moral issues aside." If you get past the controversy and just look at which research is producing results, adult stem cell research is the more promising.

gman45: I never said it was illegal. I said it was all but outlawed. I was implying that there were extremely tight restrictions. A lack of federal funding and government support is a huge restriction on research.

Also creating Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Stem Cells has potential risks. In order to do this they use modified viruses. It is believed that these viruses may trigger the expression of cancer causing genes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell). Recent developments may help with this but those have happened within only within the last few months so a lot more research will be needed. There is also still some question as to whether these cells will be as effective as natural Pluripotent Stem Cells (Embryonic).

laurenra7: Stem Cell research has been ongoing and federally funded but with restrictions that make it very hard to make real progress.

First, Adult Stem Cell research received 60% more funding under the Bush Administration (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell)

Second, under the Bush Administration and earlier, Stem Cell Research was limited to existing cell lines (21 in total). This isn't a large pool to draw from.

Given the difference in funding and the availability of cell lines, is it any surprise that the less restricted, higher funded research produced more results? It doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Most researchers believe that Pluripotent Stem Cells have greater potential than Adult Stem Cells even if that potential has not yet been realized.

And finally most supporters of Embryonic Stem Cell research do not condone the destruction of human embryos for scientific research. Rather they suggest that since there are Embryos that are being destroyed anyway (leftover from In Vitro Fertilization), these Embryos (already marked for destruction) could be used as sources for Stem Cells.

SCREW THE EMBRYOS, THEY’RE IRRELEVANT!
HOW DO YOU LIKE LIVING ON DEATH ROW?

March, 2009

“…since few people can afford to travel outside the country for adult stem cell treatments, EmbryonicStemCell-crazed America (the Bangladesh of stem cells, with its focus on “treatment useless” research and 4-8 years behind the rest of the world on available adult stem cell treatments) has become exactly that, a death row prison cell for those suffering from so-called untreatable diseases.”

Should embryos be researched? In theory, everything should be researched because we won’t know what advancements can come of it until it’s done. But what about embryonic research IN REGARD TO TREATMENTS and the great stem cell debate? Screw the Embryos, They’re Irrelevant!

So what if embryonic research has been 100% fruitless (in regard to generating treatments) for FULLY-funded and government supported scientists around the world for the last 11 years...just not in the US.

So what if Dr. Colin McGuckin, a noted UK embryonic research leader at Newcastle U. before departing for more useful RSC research in France announced:

“For me, the unnecessary row over stem cells has obscured the very real issue that patients are waiting to be treated. Some of those can be, here and now with cord blood. Cord blood has no ethical controversies whatsoever - it’s accepted by every major religion on the planet. The best estimates of the embryonic scientists in our own university in Newcastle is that embryonic stem cells may not be able to help people this side of 50 years. That’s my lifetime. And that’s worrying. We can’t wait that long.”

So what if the world’s best embryonic scientists believe...

To read the whole article - www.repairstemcell.wordpress.com/screw-the-embryos-they%E2%80%99re-irrelevant/

David Granovsky, Stemcellblogger