posted March 12, 2009 09:29 PM            

I recall hearing clips of Obama speak on the radio...he talked about his opinions on legalizing such research as (paraphrasing) he thought one should do things "based on facts, not ideologies", thus he intends to pass the legislation for the research.

I know many people have been wanting this, many who are afflicted with Parkinson's disease and so forth. They want to be cured. They want to be well again.

However, I am against embryonic stem cell research because it involves not only destroying the experimented embryos, but also the very action of experimenting on embryos. Time has proven that science is not always right, and testing on embryos is, to me, taking life for granted and dehumanizing.

I realize those ill individuals want this, though. I ask myself had I been one of them, would I hope for the legalization of such research? It's a difficult question as the fact is, I am not one of them. Nonetheless, the end does not justify the means.

I welcome your opinions, even if yours might differ from mine, as long as it remains a civilized discussion.

posted March 13, 2009 02:19 AM            

Oddly, and I know the following comments may be very insulting so apologies in advance, this reminds me of how pet food is produced. They take the "waste products" of one industry and then do whatever they can with it to make a profit ... nevermind that no animal in the wild eats food that is similarly composed or processed in that manner. It's really not the best thing you can feed your pets no matter how it's advertised. Likewise, embryonic stem cell research has the potential* to take the "waste" from abortions and do research in the name of progress even if it isn't the most productive and successful method for such research.

*[I say potential because I've read that currently the methods employed are different ... but neither am I for creating embryos just to destroy them.] Reminds me a bit of NERV's experiments with Rei in Evangelion. I know, I know, fiction. But still. Just as strange and disturbing.

Anyway, as a tidbit, one situation of adult stem cell success that I've been made aware of here in Japan is a new sort of breast implant. Superficial perhaps but with the potential to help breast cancer survivors, for example. What they do, in simple terms as I'm no scientist, is they take the fat cells from one part of your body and then use your own adult stem cells to create a tissue that can basically graft itself onto your natural breast tissue. Supposedly, the results have been very promising and the chance for rejecting the procedure is nonexistent as the genetic material used is your own.

If such things are possible with adult stem cells, especially your own as it may prove to minimize complications, then that makes me very supportive of that particular research and very wary of any supposed need for embryonic stem cell research.

*added*

While some may argue it may be seen as biased as it favors adult stem cell research, here is just one simple website that discusses the differences between embryonic and adult stem cells.

quote:

---

Pros and Cons of Embryonic and Adult Stem Cells
Cell Comparisons: Embryonic vs. Adult


There are significant medical and scientific differences between embryonic and adult stem cell research and therapy. Here is a comparison between the two types, including some of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Embryonic Stem Cell Advantages
1. Flexible—appear to have the potential to make any cell
2. Immortal—one ES cell line can potentially provide an endless supply of cells with
defined characteristics
3. Availability—embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics

Embryonic Stem Cell Disadvantages
1. Difficult to differentiate uniformly and homogeneously into a target tissue
2. Immunogenic—ES cells from a random embryo donor are likely to be rejected
after transplantation
3. Tumorigenic—Capable of forming tumors or promoting tumor formation
4. Destruction of developing human life

Adult Stem Cell Advantages
1. Special adult-type stem cells from bone marrow and from umbilical cord have been
isolated recently which appear to be as flexible as the embryonic type
2. Already somewhat specialized—inducement may be simpler
3. Not immunogenic—recipients who receive the products of their own stem cells will
not experience immune rejection
4. Relative ease of procurement—some adult stem cells are easy to harvest (skin,
muscle, marrow, fat), while others may be more difficult to obtain (brain stem cells).
Umbilical and placental stem cells are likely to be readily available
5. Non-tumorigenic—tend not to form tumors
6. No harm done to the donor

Adult Stem Cell Disadvantages
1. Limited quantity—can sometimes be difficult to obtain in large numbers
2. Finite—may not live as long as ES cells in culture
3. Less flexible (with the exception of #1 above)—may be more difficult to reprogram to
form other tissue types

---

Stem Cell Research Facts

posted March 15, 2009 09:02 PM            

quote:

---

Seems too political a motive, imo.

---

I concur. I had not heard of adult stem cell research as an alternative to embryonic stem cell research, but now with this second option available, it does not behoove us to bother with the embryonic stem cell issue. Passing the legislation of and practicing such research is, to my mind, a dangerous move. According to a quote from himself, President Obama only sees the human condition as "facts", and rejects "ideologies", which is the foundation of his policy on legalizing embryonic stem cell research. As we know, facts are not always reliable, and ideologies are sometimes more than merely ideologies- many of them are truths. Judging from such mindset, Obama has missed a lot, and is to make potentially precarious decisions.

posted March 17, 2009 11:02 AM            

These lies range from...Bush banned embryonic stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research offer cures for degenerative disease, little Johnny could get up and walk if only there were embryonic stem cell research. All lies of the first order.

There has been no banning of embryonic stem cell research. Bush wouldn't permit public..government funding for embryonic stem cell research but private sector research was good to go...providing they wanted to spend their own money. By the way, private sector research labs spend BILLIONS each year..of their own money on promising drugs and therapies to cure disease..but they want no part of embryonic stem cell research.

There have been no cures developed from embryonic stem cell research; none, not one. In fact, embryonic stem cell research has proved these cells produce brain and spinal tumors in test subjects and further, there is a very high rejection rate when these cells are introduced into patients. Little Johnny isn't going to get up and walk when injected with embryonic stem cells, Little Johnny is going to die from brain and spinal cord tumors.

The Private Sector has spoken loud and clear. Adult stem cells produce real cures and are succeeding and that's where private research labs are spending money...to find real cures.

So, when the Liar in Chief O'Bomber said..."We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."...O'Bomber was doing his usual, lying through his teeth. There are no promising research projects for "embryonic stem cells" and no one in America I know wants to "lead the world" in producing brain and spinal cord tumors.

Now, it would be one thing if all this wasn't already widely known...embryonic stem cells produce brain and spinal tumors, haven't developed one cure for anything and have a very high rejection rate in patients. But, this is widely known and has been for at least 5 years. We discussed this here on this forum about 4 years ago. In the intervening years, nothing has changed, there have been no advances in embryonic stem cell therapies...anywhere in the world.

March 17, 2009
Obama: destroying human life for the 'greater good'
By Chris Banescu

On March 9th President Obama's executive order reversed the Bush administration's long-standing restrictions on using federal funds for embryonic stem cells research and authorized the destruction of live human embryos in medical experimentation. The administration ignored the promising results from adult stem cell therapies. It reopened a Pandora's Box of bioethical concerns and raised vocal opposition from many Christian leaders, including 191 Catholic bishops.

Science is on the side of embryonic stem cell research, the president argued. Linking fetal stem cells experiments with "scientific integrity" in the order titled "Signing of Stem Cell Executive Order and Scientific Integrity", Obama proclaimed:

"will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

But is the grandiose promise and lofty language supported by the facts?

Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells

Stem cell research focuses on both adult (somatic) stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells, found inside the tissues and organs of the body, that are capable of regenerating damaged tissue or self-renewing indefinitely. Under the right conditions, these cells have the potential to transform themselves into any other cell type.

Embryonic stem cells, as the name suggests, are derived from embryos. This process requires the harvesting and destruction of live human embryos that have been fertilized in vitro and then destroyed at the blastocyst stage, about four to five days into development.

Experimentation using adult stem cells raises no moral issues since no embryo is destroyed. Embryonic stem cells research on the other hand, requires the creation and destruction of living embryos and is fraught with moral difficulty. That's why almost half of all Americans oppose it, many scientists and doctors have gone on the record to express their deep misgivings about the procedure, and why religious leaders condemn it.

Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells

The Catholic Church (1.1 billion members world-wide), the Baptist churches (38 million believers), and the Orthodox Church (225 million faithful) condemn all forms of embryonic stem cell research.

In June of 2008, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), in a statement devoted exclusively to the issue of embryonic stem cell research, reiterated the Church's long-standing belief that human life is a precious gift from God and deserves protection and the greatest respect. The hierarchs condemned the direct killing of innocent "embryonic human beings" in the interest of research and opposed the use of taxpayer funds to support such policies. The USCCB statement made it very clear that harvesting embryonic cells is a deliberate act that kills human life, a "gravely immoral act." (US Conference of Catholic Bishops, On Embryonic Stem Cell Research)

In October 2001, the Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), in a statement titled "Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the Perspective of Orthodox Christianity", also affirmed the sanctity of all human life, created in the image of God, which begins at the moment of conception. The Orthodox bishops denounced any research based on the destruction of embryonic cells, regardless of its potential benefits. (OCA, Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the Perspective of Orthodox Christianity) The Church's position is clear that a live embryo is human life and not just a "clump of cells." Destroying them to extract stem cells for research purposes is "morally and ethically wrong in every instance." (OCA, Orthodox Church & Stem Cell Research)

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), also denounced Obama's decision as a "sad day for the sanctity of all human life in America." Mr. Land labeled the president's action "open season on unborn babies" for endorsing the destruction of human life for the purpose of harvesting of cells and tissues in the interests of science.

From a moral standpoint, adult stem cells clearly provide the least controversial solution. But what about the science? Which approach has shown the most promise and provided the better medical results?

Adult Stem Cells Research: The Proven Medical Alternative

In 2007, the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics compiled and published a paper showing the impressive success of adult stem cell therapies. Titled "Peer-Reviewed References List Showing Applications of Adult Stem Cells that Produce Therapeutic Benefit to Human Patients," The report documented over 70 treatments and 1,300 human clinical trials for adult stem cells research.

As of April 2007, adult stem cells research had produced treatments for approximately 26 types of cancers, 19 auto-immune diseases, 2 cardiovascular and 1 ocular problems, 3 immunodeficiencies, 3 neural degenerative diseases and injuries, 10 anemias and other blood conditions, 4 wounds and injuries, 5 different metabolic disorders, 2 types of liver disease, and 1 bladder disease. On the other hand, no embryonic stem cells research had made it past the animal testing phase.

A summary score card of these findings (adult stem cells = 70, embryonic stem cells = 0) is available here. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/CheckTheScore.pdf

A brief overview of the available studies and articles published since April 2007, point to continuing successes and advances in the field.

[Adult] Stem cell breakthrough gives new hope to sufferers of muscle-wasting diseases - Mar. 9, 2009
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/uons-scb030509.php

[Adult] Stem Cell Breakthrough Could Solve Ethical Dilemmas - Mar. 2, 2009

Adult Stem Cell Research Reverses Effects of Parkinson's Disease in Human Trial - Feb. 16, 2009

[Adult] Stem Cells Reset Immune System in Multiple Sclerosis Patients - Jan. 29, 2009

Adult Stem Cell Breakthrough: First Tissue-engineered Trachea Successfully Transplanted - Nov. 18, 2008

The suitability of adult stem cells for potential cures and the many medical successes have attracted significant financial support from private companies, universities, and venture capitalists. The same cannot be said about embryonic stem cells experimentation. This is due to the lack of any medical evidence where a malady has been healed using embryonic stem cells, the difficult ethical and moral issues raised, and the tendency of these treatments to produce tumors as a side effect, including the recent discovery of brain and spinal cord tumors in a young man in Israel undergoing fetal stem cell therapy.

The lack of private capital is the reason embryonic stem cell advocates are beating down the doors of government. In his criticism of California's Proposition 71 (which authorized $3 billion of state funds to support embryonic experimentation), social ethicist Wesley J. Smith explained:

Think about it. If this were really likely to bring about cures any time soon, you would have to beat venture capitalists away with a stick. But the money to pay for cloning and embryonic stem cell research is not flowing from the private sector, so they want the public to pay for the research with borrowed money that is not accountable to the legislature.

Obama's support of embryonic stem cell research is ideologically driven. The facts don't support his promises or claims of scientific integrity. By lifting the federal ban he endorses highly speculative and unproven experimentation, using taxpayer dollars to fund it. His words ring with pseudo-religious fervor.

Even Nicholas Wade, writing in the New York Times, hinted that Obama's adamant endorsement of embryonic stem cells experimentation is misguided. In a March 10, 2009 article titled "Rethink Stem Cells? Science Already Has" the NYT questioned the need for embryonic research when better advances have been made using adult cells that can be "reprogrammed to an embryonic state with surprising ease". According to Dr. Kriegstein the advances made by biologist Shinya Yamanaka from Japan in reprogramming these cells, may "eventually eclipse the embryonic stem cell lines for therapeutic as well as diagnostics applications."

In a surprising twist from the left-leaning paper, it also admitted that:

Despite an F.D.A.-approved safety test of embryonic stem cells in spinal cord injury that the Geron Corporation began in January, many scientists believe that putting stem-cell-derived tissues into patients lies a long way off. Embryonic stem cells have their drawbacks. They cause tumors, and the adult cells derived from them may be rejected by the patient's immune system. Furthermore, whatever disease process caused the patients' tissue cells to die is likely to kill introduced cells as well. All these problems may be solvable, but so far none have been solved."

posted March 18, 2009 02:06 AM            

I have assumed this topic must have been debated here at LL a long time ago. But now President Obama's support for embryonic stem cell research once again sparks controversy. His motive is very questionable, and when Obama spoke of "facts" and "ideologies", he seemed to mix the two. Clearly, he ignore the facts about the alternative, which is adult stem cell research, and the high risks of developing brain or spinal cord tumors or resistance after the implantation of embryonic stem cells. Obama does this all "in the name of science", but is he truly scientifically-informed? His rash decision is simply dangerous.