TheBlackCat

I am not sure how many have heard of this, but there is a new development in the field of embryonic stem cells. As I am sure everyone is aware, scientists consider embryonic stem cells to have the potential to treat or cure a wide variety of ailments. The potential benefit is not the issue here, nor is the relative merity of emrbyonic vs adult stem cells. Nor is how long it will take actually develop treatments. So please avoid these topic if at all possible since this will likely result in the thread descending into a blazing inferno of flames.

What is the issue here is a new technique for extracting emrbyonic stem cells. Normally embryonic stem cells are take from the blastocyst stage of an embryo, basically a hollow ball of cells.



At this stage there are a large number of cells that have not begun to differentiate into the 200 or so different types of cells found in the human body. However, they have begun to spatially organize themselves. This spatial organization is essential to development, so it is not safe or practical to just remove a few cells. They also adhere strongly to each other at this stage. All of them are extracted, resulting in no further development of the embryo. Many people have issues with this because they see it as killing a human life (please don't start that debate here). Most current proposals involve using left over embryos from in vitro fertalization clinics that would otherwise be destroyed.



However, a new technique that worked on rats previously and, from what I hear, has just been demonstrated in humans could change all that. This technique involves a much (well few days) earlier stage in development.



In this stage there are only 8 cells. At this point there is no spatial orientation to the cells and they do not adhere strongly to each others. The lack of any real structure means the embryo is flexible enough to repair major damage at this point. It is possible to remove a single cell at this stage without any negative effects on the embryo and no development problems for a later fetus or baby. In fact, it is a common technique to remove a single cell at this stage during in vitro fertelization to determine which of the severl embryos available is the healthiest. It has no negative impact on any baby the results.

Now technically this single cell is not a stem cell at all. However, it can be coaxed into becoming a normal embryonic stem cell (with some difficulty) and be used for embryonic stem cell research and potentially treatment. And this is without having any permanent effect on the embryo. It has the potential to sidestep what currently seem to be the primary issue with embryonic stem cells, that is the destruction of an embryo to get stem cells. However, the Catholic church, which opposes IVF period also, by extention, opposes this. So I was curious how this affected everyone's opinion on the ethics of embryonic stem cells.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

SFOSOK

There are way too many options there. I would think a simple Yes (explain), No (explain), Undecided (explain) would be enough

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

Maddogg6

First off - I LOVE hearing about a new 'light' in cures amidst all the new 'ailments'.


slightly off subject...

My friend just told me about a new procedure for battling cancer - that involves 'reporgarmming' white blood cells to attack cancer cell - the promising results demonstrated (on a human) that a apple size tumor was reduced to a shriveled grape in much less time than traditional treatments.... and no nastey Chemo or Radiation side effects.

Its my understanding stem cell research led to these possibilities (some how.. not sure??)

The downfall (for now) is the its only showing promise for certain types of cance (breast, colon etc..- that 'type' is my reference - but wont mention something I cant verify)

But it made me think.... didnt we look at 'infection' - a leading killer some time ago - in about as many 'types' as we see with cancer? - until penicilan came along.... My hopes is that cancer will be seen the same way shortly.

SFOSOK

Balance of morals and science like life has always been. I don't know which catagory I fall into yet.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

TheBlackCat

I fail to see the ambiguity in this case. No embryos are harmed this way. No embryos are destroyed. If you consider embryos to be human life, then no human life is lost. So then what is your concern?

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

Maddogg6

If this point is true - I fail to see any points of opposition.
But, this sorta threw me off when I read it...

TheBlackCat

As I said, it is a routine procedure. It is used all the time in IVF clinics. It has no negative impact on the embryo.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

SFOSOK

You tell me. Your the one who started a thread about stem cell research, if there are not two sides then where is the debate?

I'm just the guy who doesn't give a sh*t.

__________________
*Warning* - Explicit Content Preceeding



METAL!!

TheBlackCat

First, this is not about "stem cell research", as I made as clear as I possibly could in my post. This is about a specific, new technique for extracting embryonic stem cells without harming the embryo. This technique is extremely new, a few weeks I think. There hasn't been enough time for serious fallout (although the catholic church opposes it because they oppose IVF period). The current debate is primarily regarding the destruction of embryos. This new technique sidesteps the issue entirely, so I thought it would be interesting to see if this has changed peoples' minds or simply brought new issues to the surface.

Second, I said that I do not see any issue with it. The whole point of the thread is to find out if anyone else can see such an issue. I am trying to find out if this new technique has changed the minds of embryonic stem-cell opponents and what problems, if any, people still have in light of this new development. If I knew what problems people had I wouldn't have needed to start the thread to begin with.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

Pompey

Its in the field of gene therapy, which doesn’t involve embryos. The white cells are extracted and their natural ability to fight cancer is enhanced. They are then re-injected and hopefully are successful at fighting the cancer.
It was only effective in 2 out of the 17 patients being treated.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/31...ine/index.html

__________________
One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

Al_Vampyre

As I see it we have a situation here that gives us the advantages of stem cell reasearch withought the associated morasl/ethical dilemma therefore I see no issue.

As for the catholic church being against it, yeah well, they locked people up for claiming that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe and still won't accept that condoms could help the aids situation in Africa, so I won't lose any sleep over them being against it.

__________________
"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad" - Brian O'Driscoll - Ireland Rugby Team 2009 Grand Slam winning Captain.

Falstaff

One of the beasts of the Apocolypse
our own technology..

__________________

OldBuzzard

You are asking about stem cell research, and ignoring the fact that the big debate is not about stem cell research, it's about government funded research.

There is nothing that prevents private funded stem cell research.


With that established, I am in favor of that research, but not in favor of it being funded by the government.

__________________
When looking for a reason as to why things go wrong, never rule out sheer STUPIDITY

TheBlackCat

No, we are talking about research period. All this talk about "privately funded research" simply ignores the reality of biomedical research, both in this country and others. It assumes private funding actually exists. But by far the vast, vast majority of funding for biomedical research comes from the federal government. NSF, NIH, agencies like that are by far the largest funders of biomedical research. Private funding, generally from corporations, is usually oriented at research that promises immediate payofff or at least payoff very soon. Pure research or research which won't have practical applications for a while (like a decade or more, which is what is thought for stem cells) is extremely hard, if not impossible, to get private funding for. Killing government funding pretty much kills research in that area.

There are a few groups still doing embryonic stem cell research with usable (i.e. not Bush-approved) stem cell lines, but it is negligable compared to research in Europe and Asia where government funding is readily available. That is why there is a vast exodus of researchers in the field to other countries, they have to move if they actually want money. That is also why a couple of state governments are trying to spend money on embryonic stem cell research (although opponents keep throwing up legal challenges). They will be able to steal away a large number of researchers from other states by offering them money to do their research. Sure private funding would be great...if it existed. But generally speaking it does not. That is simply how biomedical research works. And simply cutting off all funding really hasn't changed that to any significant degree.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

Maddogg6

That is - if you beleive in such *religious* predictions....

Maddogg6

Interesting.... that wasnt pointed out to me... but.... *maybe* its a lead on something great.

Chemo and Radiation - in more extreme cases tend to weaken patients and limits how much 'therapy' one can survive.....So I guess Im still hopefull.

As far as cancer returning - I suppose that will be yet more to discover.