# Have embryonic stem cells really produced no positive results? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 21, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-embryonic-stem-cells-really-produced-no-positive-results/318037 "2005-08-21T23:58:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-embryonic-stem-cells-really-produced-no-positive-results/318037/1 "2005-08-21T23:58:13Z")
On a mailing list I’m on, there’s currently a debate about stem cells, specifically adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells vs. embryonic stem cells. A couple people have made the claim that embryonic stem cells have never been used to do anything beneficial but are in fact bad things that tend to cause tumors, and that every one of the 130 treatments that currently use stem cells use stem cells from adults (like bone marrow stem cells) or stem cells from umbilical cords. They say that embryonic stem cell research is therefore bad science that should not be funded, as it is completely unnecessary, is only good for causing cancer, has never produced a positive result, etc. I’m not interested in any kind of debate about the morality of embryonic stem cells, but I am wondering if their information is accurate, or if it is false or somehow misleading. What’s the scoop? ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-embryonic-stem-cells-really-produced-no-positive-results/318037/2 "2005-08-22T00:10:06Z")
I don’t know the answer to this question, but even if nothing has been done with them yet, does that mean no research should be done with them? At one time nothing beneficial had been done with antibiotics and almost every other medical advance you can think of. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-embryonic-stem-cells-really-produced-no-positive-results/318037/3 "2005-08-22T01:04:24Z")
Yeah it’s awfully early to throw ESC’s out thw window. I think most of the work has been done one animals thus far. [Animal Study Find Embryonic Stem Cells Can Repair Heart Muscle](http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases/bid/1201stemcells.html) > [@](#): > > Boston–December 2001, Harvard Medical School affiliate Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center–Transplantation of embryonic stem cells can help repair injured heart muscle and improve cardiac function following heart attacks and the development of congestive heart failure (CHF), according to the results of an animal study conducted at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Google Scholar returns [over 49 thousand hits](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=X&oi=scholart&q=embryonic+stem+cells+positive+results) for “embryonic stem cells positive results” but the language is highly technical. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-embryonic-stem-cells-really-produced-no-positive-results/318037/4 "2005-08-22T01:07:15Z")
Yeah, that’s a point I’ve made, that even if embryonic stem cells have produced no positive results yet, that doesn’t mean they don’t have potential – according to [this NIH stem cell FAQ](http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp), embryonic stem cells have only been worked on since 1998, while adult stem cells have been used for more than 40 years. But the people arguing that embryonic stem cells are bad science are saying that there have been no positive results at all AND that there are unlikely to be any in the future because embryonic stem cells are more likely to cause cancer than to do any good. So I’m hoping somebody here can give me, well, the straight dope. That animal study link is great, **Patty O’Furniture**. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-embryonic-stem-cells-really-produced-no-positive-results/318037/5 "2005-08-22T03:15:15Z")
FYI, somebody in my debate has now claimed that the 2001 rat study **Patty O’Furniture** linked to is debunked by [this document](http://stemcellresearch.org/facts/HeartASvsES.pdf), which unfortunately is a PDF file. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-embryonic-stem-cells-really-produced-no-positive-results/318037/6 "2005-08-22T04:01:41Z")
> [@chorpler](#): > > FYI, somebody in my debate has now claimed that the 2001 rat study **Patty O’Furniture** linked to is debunked by [this document](http://stemcellresearch.org/facts/HeartASvsES.pdf), which unfortunately is a PDF file. That’s a pretty loose interpretation of “debunked” even by Family Research Council standards. > [@](#): > > Touted ESCR Heart Studies—Mixed Results in Animals: > > **2004** Doctors at the Mayo Clinic transformed embryonic stem cells into fully functional cardiac cells and transplanted them into damaged regions of the hearts of rats. The results showed that the walls of the heart were stronger. _Terzic, et al. “Stable benefit of embryonic stem cell therapy in Myocardial infarction,” American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, August 2004._ > > **2003** Researchers injected mouse embryonic stem cells into the hearts of rats after induced heart attack. The cells turned into heart cells and improved heart function over a period of 32 weeks. _Min JY et al. “Long-term improvement of cardiac function in rats after infarction by transplantation of embryonic stem cells.” The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 125, 361-369 February 2003._ > > **2002** Researchers turned mouse embryonic stem cells into heart-like cells in a Petri dish. Although the cells demonstrated spontaneous electrical activity, they beat irregularly like an arrhythmia. _Zhang YM et al. “Stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes demonstrate arrhythmic potential”; Circulation 106, 1294-1299; September 3, 2002._ So, after a petri-dish culture of heartlike tissue from embryonic stem cells displayed some arrhythmia, two further studies showed long term, stable benefits in actual hearts? I guess that’s a solid debunking of the idea that we currently have the technology to use embryonic stem cells to generate a functional heart _in vitro_. “Sure, they got it to work great in a _mice_ a couple of times, but they still can’t make a carpet-like culture of muscle tissue in a dish beat steadily. Best to stop exploring that avenue of research.” Uh… ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-embryonic-stem-cells-really-produced-no-positive-results/318037/7 "2005-08-22T04:14:26Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > That’s a pretty loose interpretation of “debunked” even by Family Research Council standards Thanks, Larry. I think the guy’s claim was actually that adult stem cells are doing much better than the embryonic stem cells, but that section you quoted and your analysis made me see something I hadn’t seen. It appears that their own data indicates that things are only getting better with embryonic stem cells.