First question, is it a true claim about this being the first significant application of stem cell research in medicine?
Second question, are embryonic stem cells in any way superior to other types of stem cells?
Third question (politically loaded): why anybody opposing immediate harvesting of embryonic stem cells is branded as religious fanatic standing in the way of Progress? Especially considering that real stem cells science is barely beginning to yield practical results?
Finally, the morally loaded question, does it make any difference that embryos can develop into people and even Democrats but buttock tissue can’t?
I think that the decisions regarding which path is best to follow is something we should leave to the scientists. They know far more about the subject than I do, or does any joe off the street. However, most Joe’s off the street are interested in the subject for religious reasons, not because of the scientific implications, thus the religious fanatic label.
Doesn’t bug me at all. They may develop into people, but they arn’t people. I may develop into a CEO, but I don’t get the paycheck.
Yes. Embryonic stem cells can produce any cell, from brain cells to skin cells. Adult stem cells are much more limited, and can only develop into certain specific cells.
Perhaps some pro stem cell research people brand their opposite number as religious fanatics. I am sure at least an equal amount of anti stem cell research people brand their opposite number as murderers.
The question ultimately boils down to what you define as human. Some would say that a ball of cells, with the potential to develop into a human, is a human. Essentially humanness is a matter of genetics. Others argue that what makes us human is our ability to feel, to think, to create etc. This argument says that embryos are not human, just potential humans.
Not to me, no. I feel that only creatures capable of feeling subjective experiences are worthy of protection for their own sake. However the question may soon become obsolete - it is possible to create a clone from say buttock tissue. OK, so noone has tried it in humans yet that we know of, but still, every one of those buttock tissue cells is a potential life…
Under that logic, nothing unknown is worth trying. The Wright Brothers were wasting their time trying to build a flying contraption.
A large reason for this lack of progress is the efforts by fundies to prevent the research from happening in the first place. So I don’t buy this argument. California and some other countries are funding it now. It may take years to make a major breakthrough. Science takes time. We know for a fact that stem cells are able to develop into any other type of body cell, the trick is figuring out how we can control them into doing what we want.
Please. I only said that bringing political passions in scientific research is sure to backfire. Wright Bros. tinkering hasn’t become a political issue - thanks to their shrewd business decision not to use embryos, presumably - otherwise we’d still be arguing whether humans were meant to fly.
Also, I’m not saying not to use embryos in medical research. I’m fully aware that thousands of people dump their embryos every day, so it doesn’t make sense just to give those embryos ‘proper funerals’. However, given voracious nature of our economic motivations, government open sanction of embryo research will certainly lead to abuses in harvesting of embryos by some unsavory types. At some point during recent US Pres. campaign suggestion to explore all other options in stem cell research was treated as anti-Progressive. It was like embryos or nothing. Meanwhile some Germans were tinkering with possible things, like fat cells…
No. Adult stem cells have been used therapeutically for many years, and there are very few people who see any kind of moral problem with using them. This application of stem-cell technology is not only uncontroversial, it has produced many viable therapies.
So far, there are no therapeutic applications using embryonic stem cells.
Not right now. See above. Embryonic stem cells also have a nasty way of becoming tumors.
Real stem cell science has been producing results for years. Ever heard of a bone-marrow transplant? There isn’t anyone who is against this as a practical matter. The only debate is whether it’s ethical to exploit embryos for stem cells and destroy them in the process.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research are portrayed oftentimes as being against new stem cell therapies, when this is far too simplistic a view. For the record, I oppose embryonic stem sell research, and I also have a card on file with the bone marrow donor registry.
Because any governmental action that relates to embryos has the potential to impact a woman’s right to abortion, and abortion-rights proponents find they get the best PR traction out of branding their opponents “religious fanatics.”
Not true. Even if funding were increased greatly, the problems I cited would still exist. The fiercest advocates of embryonic stem cell research freely note that the embryonic stem cells are much harder to work with than the adult stem cells.
That is why they want more money and resources for their research. Doing all of this legwork isn’t easy.
Meanwhile, as I stated, adult stem cells have been used to treat and cure diseases since about 1968, and remain promising today for treating even more medical conditions. The OP notes merely the latest potential application of this technology.
First question: I believe, the article only states this was the first time stem cells have been applied to grow bones, not “the first significant application of stem cell research in medicine?”. As has been pointed out, stem cells have been used therapeutically since the 1960’s or so.
Second: the medical and research consensus is that yes, embryonic stem cell should be vastly superior to adult stem cells. Obviously adult stem cells are more useful right now, and I suppose you could argue that eventually (after decades and decades of research) we might be able to make adult cells do the same things as embryonic cells. But the rub is, embryonic stem cells appear to have the best potential to get us where we want to go most quickly. A (perhaps poor) analogy: current therapies with adult stem cells are like flying in a jet. Potential therapy with embryonic cells is like hyperdrive.
Third: I hadn’t noticed that all opponents were automatically labelled as religious fanatics. However, to be blunt, some of the stem cell opposition are religious fanatics. example example
The loudest voice becomes the poster child of the cause.
Fourth question: Personal value judgement. But if folks have an issue with embryos being “destroyed” why aren’t they picketing IVF clinics for disposing unwanted embryos?
Well, there are religious objections from some quarters to IVF. The Catholic Church basically forbids this practice to their members.
You may not agree with the Church’s position on this, but it is fully consistent with their views on other matters concerning human life (anti-abortion, anti-cloning, etc.)
True. The Catholic Church is consistent on this issue and opposes IVF. Which is why I am happy to be a lapsed Catholic with a healthy baby boy. (btw, I’m not sure most US Catholics know that they’re not allowed to use IVF.)
Seriously though, I have found the Catholic Church not only to be consistent on this issue, but to be very reasonable (i.e. not fanatical) in the presentation of their arguments.
The point is I think religious groups realize they’ve lost the fight on IVF (it’s a tough position to take: saying no to people who really want a child). But since there are significant numbers of embryos discarded from IVF treatment, I think it’s tough to say we shouldn’t pursue stem cell research because it leads to the ‘destruction’ of embryos. Those IVF discards could be ‘put to use’ in research. I think there is a viable argument for opponents to take in their somewhere, but they haven’t found it yet (imho).
I’m not arguing from a religious stance myself, though I am Catholic. I was just pointing out that there are indeed some religious objections to IVF, even if nobody is picketing outside the doors of fertility clinics.
Congratulations on your son, Illinois_Boy. My wife and I thought we’d be facing fertility issues as well. Now, of course, we have the opposite problem - three kids two years old and under.
Yes, some are. And many of embryonic cells research advocates are perfectly reasonable and sensible. Guess we just chalk it up among election year excesses, like flu vaccine shortage/surplus.
I think a lot of people are unaware of the actual source of embryonic stem cells. They hear “embryo” and “fetus” and conflate this issue with the abortion hoo-haw.
As other have said, you only remember those who scream the loudest, and these tend to be people with a, shall we say, firm grip on their religious beliefs, but not necessarily a thorough understanding of the science involved.
(btw, I’m not sure most US Catholics know that they’re not allowed to use IVF.)