science and nature – nature online – science news

against stem cell research

Several studies have indicated that the human body may have regenerative properties if given the right circumstances. For example, a child under ten years old may be able to regrow a lost fingertip if the wounds aren’t stitched up to prevent the regrowth. If the membrane surrounding one’s rib is left intact, a damaged rib can regenerate. Scientists also speculate that livers and kidneys have some regenerative abilities as well. To further study this realm of science, we must rely on stem cell research. However, there is much stem cell controversy blocking the path to enlightenment.

In an embryo that is just three days old, stem cells are found that will later transform into the heart, lungs, skin, tissues, bone marrow, muscle and brain. Advocates of stem cell research believe that there may be a way to generate replacement cells for parts of the body lost through injury, disease or aging. What makes stemcells different than blood, muscle or nerve cells is their innate ability to replicate for months in a laboratory setting. Scientists are hopeful about the potential for long term rejuvenation using these self-renewing human stem cells.

There are two varieties used in modern stem cell research: stem cells embryonic and stem cells adult. Embryonic stem cells are cultivated in a Petri dish from in vitro fertilization. This type of stem cell is extremely versatile and can differentiate into more than 220 cell types in the body for more than a year in a research setting, which is promising for many future medical treatments. Scientists are still trying to understand why embryonic cells are so much more flexible than adult stem cells. Some Americans feel it is inherently wrong to tamper with human cells, by creating, manipulating and destroying fertilized cells that could otherwise continue to grow into human life within a host.

Stem cell research holds many promises. Stem cell therapies are being used to treat type 1 diabetes and strokes with a degree of success. Perhaps in the future, scientists will be able to create healthy heart tissue in the lab and transplant it into their patients, rather than relying on a short supply of donors. Researchers at the University of Rochester are also running trials to repair broken or degenerating bones. With continued focus and funding, we’re likely to see many more exciting breakthroughs in this field.

waki Uncategorized adult stem cell research, against stem cell research, fetal stem cells, human stem cells, stem cell controversy, Stem Cell Research, stemcells

stem cell research debate

The stem cell research debate has spanned numerous decades, with presidents like George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush rejecting funding science that tampered with human embryos, and presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama appropriating money toward an end that justifies the means. If a primitive bundle of cells can be used to save thousands or millions of lives and alleviate suffering, then is it worth it? Or does embryonic stem cell research cross the line between man and God?

When does human life begin? This is the quintessential theological question behind embryonic stem cell research. Devout Catholics and Protestants will tell you, “Human life begins at conception, at the very moment when sperm and egg come together. Development from there on out should be left up to God and God only.” They argue the problem is that embryos are killed in the process of harvesting stem cells, therefore aborting the developing embryo. In a speech on August 9, 2001, former President George W. Bush explained, “While we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.” Pope Benedict XVI went so far as to say human stem cell research was “not only devoid of the light of God but also devoid of humanity.”

Scientists working with fetal stem cells argue they’re using primitive “blastocyte” cells fertilized in Petri dishes that are typically 3-5 days old and have not formed nerves or brain cells yet. The general consensus is that fetuses are not capable of feeling and processing pain until the third trimester, or 28 weeks, when the thalamocortical connections are developed. To others, it’s a matter of practicality. James Thomson, the first scientist to do embryonic stem cell research, told MSNBC’s Alan Boyle in June 2005, “The bottom line is that there are 400,000 frozen embryos in the United States, and a large percentage of those are going to be thrown out. Regardless of what you think the moral status of those embryos is, it makes sense to me that it’s a better moral decision to use them to help people than just to throw them out. It’s a very complex issue, but to me it boils down to that one thing.”

Lately, little attention has been paid to embryonic stem cell research as more researchers set their sights on using umbilical cord stem cells instead. Perhaps the time span where the federal government refused to fund research involving fetal stem cells pushed scientists to find innovative ways to circumvent the law; or perhaps it was the realization that an adult human body would respond better to its own stem cells, rather than from a foreign embryo’s stem cells, that caused the shift.

waki Uncategorized against stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research, fetal stem cells, Stem Cell Research, stem cell research debate

against stem cell research

Despite the stem cell controversy offered up by pro-lifers, a rosy portrait of embryonic stem cell research is often painted. We’re told that adult mouse cells can turn back to their more flexible, embryonic state again. We’re told that human trials will begin for treating spinal cord injuries. We’re told that the next five years will likely see a viable treatment for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and heart disease. President Obama is so confident in the science that he agreed to reverse Bush’s decision and allocate funds to the controversial science. Yet many Californians who voted to fund stem cell research in their state five years ago are wondering where the results are.

“The likelihood of something going wrong is pretty high,” warns Arnold Kriegstein of UC San Francisco’s Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research. “Something like tumors are probably going to happen. This is an area where the risks are great. The public has to be prepared.” He points to a recent story of a teenage boy who traveled from Israel to Russia to undergo stem cell therapies only to find he had little more than a brand new brain tumor four years later. Embryonic stem cell research is far from perfect, Kriegstein admits, and it could take many years before taxpayers see a return on their $3 billion investment.

In 2004, Californians passed Proposition 71, a state ballot initiative designed to independently fund embryonic stem cell research, despite federal restrictions. At the time it was seen as a major breakthrough for scientists as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine doled out the stem cell research funding. Yet halfway through the proposition’s lifespan, the agency is concerned that campaign promises will fall short of voter expectation, thus negating the future of funding stem cell research. Even with deadlines looming, Eric Rulifson of the UCSF Diabetes Center advocates restraint. “There’s more that we don’t understand than we do,” he admits. “None of this stuff works. There’s no stem-cell therapy that works without causing harm, because we don’t understand what stem cells do.”

Despite the limitations of the embryonic stem cell, there have been some significant discoveries in recent years. For instance, Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka found that adult stem cells could be transformed into pluripotent stem cells, which carry an infinite potential for transforming into other cells. It was also found that the human body tends to accept these new adult cells more than embryonic cells. The added significance is that an embryo needn’t be destroyed to advance science, which is what many pro-lifers had against stem cell research.

waki Uncategorized against stem cell research, embryonic stem cell, Stem Cell Research, stem cell research funding, stem cell therapies