Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy Trials to begin in US

InFront

Artcle from New Scientist Magazine


Just wondering what all of your opinions are on stem cell research?

Stem cells are the new milestone in medical technology and the debate, and perhaps eventually their use, will survive us all. Do we want to become known as the generation that brought about the objectification of human beings? How can we not do our utmost to protect and enhance (give back) lives to the chronically ill and the suffering? As someone who both studies medicine and is firmly devoted to his faith I find these questions very difficult to answer, but I have yet to be convinced of the necessity to make use of embryonic/ blastocyst cells as opposed to somatic cells and cells of the umbilical cord, which I see no problem with.

What are your opinions on this issue?

Some interesting links:
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
Medical Research Council Website
http://stemcells.nih.gov/
http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/coxon_2005-06-03.htm

I know nothing about this area. I had a good look at the links you listed below, and the articles that were listed on those sites, and to be honest it was still a bit beyond me.

Do we want to become known as the generation that brought about the objectification of human beings?

Could you explain what you mean by this? From my extremely basic understanding of this, they're taking cells from a number of sources, which would be used to treat a number of injuries. Is there a huge problem with this?

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I daresay you'll be able to explain this better than all the medical journals I viewed, which to be honest didn't seem to give me any idea of negative reprecussions.... If it is hijacking the thread, could you drop me a pm, with the basic (for dummies) explanation of what the problem is with this, beyond the body possibly fighting the introduction of the foreign cells? I assume this has some moral issues.

InFront

There are no real experts on this topic and it would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone like yourself who hasnt been swayed by prior influences on this very controversial area. Im not an expert myself but Ill just go through it without being too biased since I do have an opinion on one side.:)

Stem Cells are 'black canvasses' that can be used to make any new cell - muscle, nerve, blood, skin or smooth muscle (organs). This means that they are of interest to people who suffer a wide range of illnesses that involve cell disease - from Parkinsons to cerebrospinal injuries, to Multiple Sclerosis, Cancer, organ failure etc... Researcers feel that they have the potential to 'cure' these illnesses by taking stem cells and putting them in the sick person.

All species have stem cells that could be used for donation, and that is fine. The problem is that people who are leading this research claim that the best source of these cells come from embryos.

This poses the question: Is it fair to create human life for a specific purposes (using its cells) knowing that to do so you cannot allow a birth to occur and must end the life prematurely? This is termed objectification of the human being.
The other side of the coin is that it is unfair to deprive living humans of a possible cure from awful illnesses. Remember the medical oath 'First do no harm'. Which decision is the 'harmful' one?

The whole issue is clouded by virtue of the fact that we can take stem cells from living humans and umbilical cords, but they may not be as 'adaptave' as embryonic cells.

I hope that is reasonably clear, again its a huge topic and there are many books and academic theses written on this technology that we dont really have to know. While the technology of this area is very interesting (imo!) what is more interesting is the ethical principles it raises and I was just wondering what boardsies thought about it

edanto

InFront wrote:

All species have stem cells that could be used for donation, and that is fine. The problem is that people who are leading this research claim that the best source of these cells come from embryos.

This poses the question: Is it fair to create human life for a specific purposes (using its cells) knowing that to do so you cannot allow a birth to occur and must end the life prematurely? This is termed objectification of the human being.

Very interesting post, nice one for bring such a good question. I think that the whole crux of the moral debate around this is "at what point is a human life created?"

Are the frozen IVF embryos in storage alive? Are they alive the moment they attach to a womb wall? Sometime after that? Or before?

Is it possible, with such a contentious issue, to make a decision about this technology that everyone in a democracy will be happy with? No. But, we'll all have to agree to abide by whatever decision is made.

So, then the question that's raised, is what's the best way to get a consensus about this in Ireland? I think we should have technology advisory boards like they do in Dennmark to advise the government. Over there, people are called to these like jury duty and make recommondations to the government that are strongly respected.

My own personal opinion about the ethics of human embryo stem cell technology is that we should pursue it, as carefully as possible. There are thousands of IVF embryos around the world that are destroyed as they reach a certain age in storage.

It is these embryos that are proposed for research. They are very small - a few hundred cells and some cells in this bundle (called a blastocyte) are the multitalented cells that scientists may be able to coax into the various cell types such as nerve, pancreas, or muscle.

The way I see it, if we are comfortable with the IVF technology, and I am, then this is a very good way of using something that would otherwise be uselessly destroyed for a very likely good.

Even though I think that it's ok to use these cells for research and eventually treatments, they do deserve our fullest respect and as much as possible, we should also use umbilical and mature stem cells.

A lot of religious people object to the research, on the principle of a soul. I believe that if there is a God, she would want us to do everything we can to cure our fellow man born with a disease.

secret_squirrel

InFront wrote:

This poses the question: Is it fair to create human life for a specific purposes (using its cells) knowing that to do so you cannot allow a birth to occur and must end the life prematurely? This is termed objectification of the human being.

I dont know of any reputable scientist that has ever suggested this. Can you provide links to any organisation or people who have done this.

I as understand it most of the objections that the religious right have to stem cell research is that stem cells from the tissues of aborted fetuses have been used. However Im not aware of even the most rabid suggesting that fetuses are being 'farmed' for this purpose.

InFront

InFront wrote:

All species have stem cells that could be used for donation, and that is fine. The problem is that people who are leading this research claim that the best source of these cells come from embryos.

So while the cells that come from embryos may be the best for this purpose, there are cells from other areas that could serve in the meantime until technology can provide an alternative?

I wonder would this be a preferable option to abortion, since at least if women & men are going to decide to have the abortion, shouldn't some good come out of it?

Thanks for the expaination. It did shed some light on this area. I guess I have heard comments about this on the news, however, it always seems to involve a negative focus. As someone who has known grandparents who fell to Alzheimers disease while I was a child, I can understand that any possible cure should be explored further.

edanto wrote:

My own personal opinion about the ethics of human embryo stem cell technology is that we should pursue it, as carefully as possible. There are thousands of IVF embryos around the world that are destroyed as they reach a certain age in storage.

Erm, forgive my ignorance, but why are IVF embryo's stored at the moment? Is this accepted by people already as being ok? And if so, why would such a practice of stroring them, and subsequent expiry of them, be acceptable as opposed to usage in this form of treatment? (I understand you're advocating using them for this research, just curious about your opinion)

A lot of religious people object to the research, on the principle of a soul. I believe that if there is a God, she would want us to do everything we can to cure our fellow man born with a disease.

I would have assumed that people would agree that a persons soul is separate to that of the body, regardless of its development, and wouldn't be affected by any treatment to the body. I believe in God and the Soul. I believe the Soul is Eternal. (I'm not religious as such, as I don't belive in mans (or the churches) ability to intrepret Gods' will and leading of other people by priests)

The_Minister

There was a study a while back that showed that the adult stem cells were far more adaptive then had previously been thought.
AFAIK we haven't reached the stage where the differences between the two types are important - that comes later when the treatments are being refined.
I think that there is also a cost issue involved - embryos are cheaper.

I read in one of those free Christian magazines that they had been experimenting with stem cells in Britain for 15 years with no results, so it may be that the benefits have been overemphasised. (Does anyone know if this is true?)

humbert

It is a complicated topic. I have to say first that I’m an atheist and that I would rank religion along with greed and the common cold, things that have been around since the dawn of civilization that still our “modern society” hasn’t managed to overcome(I don’t mean to offend the opening poster but I really object to religion). I believe what makes a human life special is what is in the mind, self awareness and the resultant individuality, I do not believe that life is given to us by god and is therefore precious from the moment of conception. I do not have a good understanding of the subject but from what I’ve read the embryonic stem cells come from an artificially fertilized egg and are then grown in a lab. If this is the correct interpretation I see no rational objection to it.

InFront

secret_squirrel wrote:

I dont know of any reputable scientist that has ever suggested this...
I as understand it most of the objections that the religious right have to stem cell research is that stem cells from the tissues of aborted fetuses have been used. However Im not aware of even the most rabid suggesting that fetuses are being 'farmed' for this purpose.

Perhaps you might be interested in the research of the Jones Institute of Medicine in Viriginia. It has intentionally created human embryos for stem cell research. Massachusetts 'ACT' are involved in similar work. This is not unheard of, and embryos have and are being created for stem cell research. Most researchers are obtaining cells from cell banks at the blastocyst/ post morular stage knowing that the embryos cannot then be born into children. What did you think the controversy was about?
Using aborted foetuses, once parental consent has been given, is not a very controversial area! It's similar to cadavers being donated for first year anatomy students!

I read in one of those free Christian magazines that they had been experimenting with stem cells in Britain for 15 years with no results, so it may be that the benefits have been overemphasised. (Does anyone know if this is true?)

In fairness that is what you would expect them to say:) . While I do not agree with taking human life which can otherwise grow and become a child I wouldnt argue with the hard scientific fact, as they seem to, that stem cell research has medical benefits for certain categories of ill people, especially the use of adult stem cells in leukaemia therapy. Stem cells can have benefits, and we dont yet know those benefits, but is it worth abusing, quite literally, the smallest and most vulnerable of human society?

Remember that around 100 embryos in the USA who were destined for stem cell research, have been rescued, were born and are now healthy, happy, living children. Are their young lives any less important than adults who suffer terrible illnesses and disease?

derek27

as someone previously mentioned, it has come to light in more recent years that adult stem cells might be able to differentiate into more than one type of functional cell... this has been referred to as 'plasticity'. prior to these studies, it was accepted that each of the tissues/organs of the body had a fairly constant supply (small in comparison to differentiated cells) of specific precursor stem cells, that could be stimulated to mobilise to a site of injury within the tissue and to differentiate into the specific cells of the tissue to replace lost/damaged tissue... for example hematopoietic stem cells in the blood or neural stem cells in the nervous system. pilot studies however have shown that this is not exactly the case in that some neural stem cells have recently been shown to be capable of giving rise to many different cell types in vitro. also it was demonstrated that neural adult stem cells of the rat when injected into healthy rats gave rise to a disorganised tumor-like mass of cells consisting of many different tissue types (even including bone and teeth) - a teratoma... more evidence of plasticity.

with such mounting evidence of plasticity it would make more sense to culture a patients own stem cells for use in stem cell therapy than using embryonic stem cells, as if the cells are derived from the end-recipient they woul express the same MHC molecules and cell surface receptor variants thereby reducing the potential for immune rejection. however... the difficulty of isolating adult stem cells from a tissue due to their relatively small numbers poses an immediate problem.

embryonic stem cells on the other hand are easily isolated from the blastocyst as they are simply the inner cell mast of same and can be readily retrieved... this is a major part of the reason they came to be investigated for their omnipotency in the first place. a main advantage that embryonic stem cells have is their stability through successive rounds of replication during in vitro culturing... keeping pretty much constant with regard to genetic stability etc through several hundred rounds of replication... this means that cells can be subcultured and shipped to many separate laboratories for research purposes... and collaboration of results is possible as interlaboratory experiments can be confident that they were using the exact same cells.

whilst it should be borne in mind that stem cell research is still in its infancy, i would advocate continued investment of time, money and other resources to advance the existing knowledge to the stage where meaningful clinical trials based on compassionate use INDs are to progress, as i believe that the stem cell approach may have more potential than existing approaches (which merely aim to alleviate symptoms) in the mitigation of debilitating diseases. we are all aware of the saying 'prevention is better than cure' but in some cases prevention isn't possible so cure must be sought... and i believe that cure will in the next few decades be a possibility with stem cell therapy.

we need bold minded decision makers in the R&D area of medical research who are willing to proceed with this approach if progress is to be made. before vaccination became the norm in the developed and much of the third world, the idea of injecting a person with a known pathogenic agent (attenuated or not) was met with intense disagreement and ridicule by the wider scientific community at the time... without the decision makers who supported and promoted vaccination, and ultimately performed them in the population we would most likely still be facing some of worst diseases that humankind has ever known. so i say push on with stem cell research.

Wibbs

As I digested both InFront's and derek27's posts, I find my myself in agreement with both in one way at least. That is that this research is vitally important, because, if successful, we can expect great leaps in medicine from the merely pallative to the curative. It's an area that as an interested amateur have been reading with interest for some time. The possible benefits are huge, one the kinks have been ironed out(and there are serious kinks, from immune problems to potential cancer implications). I also agree with the comparison with vaccination.

I do share Infront's worries about certain aspects of the culturing of these stem cells though. Certain aspects don't sit well with me, specifically intentional growth of human embryos for this purpose. Obviously the patients own cells would be the best on all counts, from both an immune response standpoint and from a "moral" one. I would be loathe to get into the whole "when does life start" arena, as it's a well trodden and devisive path. I would be, even as a dyed in the wool agnostic, like Infront, uncomfortable with the slide into any "objectification of human beings". Maybe I'm paranoid, but thin end of the wedgism could be hard to avoid. Science, while not being moral in it's self, should IMHO be moral in the modes of it's discovery and the applications of such discoveries, especially in the case of medicine. Hippocrates got it pretty right all those years ago and I for one don't see any reason to change that view today.

lostexpectation

was watching one of those onelife progs on the bbc when it showed injecting stem cells into somones eye to help her regain her site, these weren't embrionic cells I think they were from a donor or her mother?

I had thought the only blank canvass stem cells cam from embryos??

secret_squirrel

Hmm the fact is that there are no scientifically proven stem cell treatments right now - we're still in the realms of bullshít and witchcraft.

Even the researchers still have major problems telling a stem cell from an 'ordinary' cell.

derek27

secret_squirrel wrote:

Hmm the fact is that there are no scientifically proven stem cell treatments right now - we're still in the realms of bullshít and witchcraft.

Even the researchers still have major problems telling a stem cell from an 'ordinary' cell.

its true to say that there is still a lot of haziness with regard to stem cell technologies and research, but it is an area that still requires the development of new and more sensitive scientific approaches to address the current hurdles posed in research. the development of such new methods is the principle area of current studies and as these techniques are validated, we will get a clearer picture of ways stem cells can be exploited for use in novel medical practices. another problem associated with stem cell research is that we do not yet know what stimuli cause a stem cell to differentiate into a specific cell type. at present in vitro models are providing some insight, but nothing concrete as yet.

patzer117

derek you're right about the technology being in its infancy but so far, and this is word of mouth from the first (and only) Bio-Ethics department of any university in the world (European University of Rome), there have been minor successes with adult stem-cells, but not one single project has had any success with embryonic stem cells? I challenge anyone to point me to one (cause i'll win a bet this way too)...

InFront

patzer117 wrote:

derek you're right about the technology being in its infancy but so far, and this is word of mouth from the first (and only) Bio-Ethics department of any university in the world (European University of Rome), there have been minor successes with adult stem-cells, but not one single project has had any success with embryonic stem cells? I challenge anyone to point me to one (cause i'll win a bet this way too)...

I dont know if they are denying the facts or you have mis-quoted them, but:

Washington University School of Medicine

rats transplanted with fetal spinal cord cells have shown improvements in some gait parameters10, and the delayed transplantation of fetal raphe cells can enhance reflexes11. We transplanted neural differentiated mouse embryonic stem cells into a rat spinal cord 9 days after traumatic injury. Histological analysis 2−5 weeks later showed that transplant-derived cells survived and differentiated into astrocytes, oligodendrocytes and neurons, and migrated as far as 8 mm away from the lesion edge. Furthermore, gait analysis demonstrated that transplanted rats showed hindlimb weight support and partial hindlimb coordination not found in 'sham-operated' controls or control rats transplanted with adult mouse neocortical cells.

Kind of ironic given that Im the one supposed to be against this.

JC 2K3

It's quite simple to me. If you're morally against it then boycott it and refuse it as treatment. If a group of people have the resources and want to attempt the research then you have to let them. If people want to avail of treatment made possible through stem cell research then let them. Morality varies from person to person.

edanto

Deleted User wrote:

Erm, forgive my ignorance, but why are IVF embryo's stored at the moment? Is this accepted by people already as being ok? And if so, why would such a practice of stroring them, and subsequent expiry of them, be acceptable as opposed to usage in this form of treatment? (I understand you're advocating using them for this research, just curious about your opinion)

I don't know much about IVF, but I think the reason that the blastocytes are stored at the moment is so that the mother only has to have eggs collected once and then there are enough in storage to attempt a few cycles of implantation, if it doesn't work the first time.

As to your second question, about why [pro IVF & anti-ESC] people consider it okay to store embryos at -196 C and then destroy them, but not okay to use them for research - I have no idea. I don't know if they have a particular reason or if it's just a moral opinion.

I don't consider a fertilised egg to be a person, sorry if that's offensive to anyone, but I firmly believe that scientists researching in this area are trying to help other people and not kill innocent 'embryo-people', as some campaigners would paint it.

Wibbs, what did you mean by the reference to Hippocrates? I agree that he more or less got it right, if you scratch out the sexism and nepotism, just wondering which part you see as applying to this debate. Curiousity I guess.
The only part of your post that I would disagree with is the wedge metaphor, I don't think that this research is pushing back moral boundaries any further than we (or I really mean I) are already comfortable with.