Why must embryonic stem cell research use human embryos instead of, say, chimpanzee embryos?

Question

Opponents of stem cell research say using human embryos is wrong because life begins a conception. An embryo, having already been concieved, is human life. Therefore using human embryo is tantamount to experimenting on people like you and me.
They also say adult stem cell research (which doesn't destroy life) has already yeilded some treatments or cures, while embryonic stem cell research has not.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research say it holds enormous promise for curing or treating all kinds of deseases and ailments.

Back to the original question. Since it's RESEARCH right now, why not use stem cells from chimpanzee (or other animal) embryos? If it works, then we can worry about the ethics of using human embryos.

This seems like such an obvious compromise....am I missing something? Or is the whole ESCR debate purely politics?

I'm not trying to make any political statement here. Just wondering what's wrong with using animal research first.

Of the first 5 answers, I think kturner's is the best...at least she's honest (unless that was sarcasm...but I'll take it as honesty).

Answer 1

Second, it's purely political. So just accept that as a given.

First, using non-human stem cells doesn't work because the genetic engineering necessary to make the cures requires starting with the genetic framework of the host species.

And contrary to what many fundamentalists claim, stem cell research has nothing to do with abortion. Scientists want to use stem cells from embryos that were going to be discarded anyway. So, it's not a question of saving a potential human life, because even without the research, no additional lives would ever come into being. It's a question of whether that cellular tissue can be used to contribute to human health and knowledge, or whether it just gets flushed.

If you used chimp stem cells, you would be able to find cures for chimpanzee disease, but that won't help humans any. Also, you misunderstand the use of the word 'research'. The techniques for utilizing stem cells are well established. What is being explored are ways to produce new medical cures based on the unique genetic properties of stem cells.

Finally, of course it's just research right now. It will always be research until all the research is done. Why aren't we doing more research to discover penicillin? Because we've already discovered it. We're done.

But we haven't discovered a cure for Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's, or MS, or dozens of other neurological disorders. So, until we have a cure that works, we need to do research to find the cure.

That's the way the entire concept of medical and scientific discovery has occurred since research first began. It's sad that so many people wan to go back to the Dark Ages, where religion says science is bad and since the church controls the government, we're stuck with what we already know.

Answer 2

Ok brother - a 7 year old question...

I found your posted question when searching for a thought that "popped" into my mind.

In regard to your Chimp question - I have yet to find any information to suggest that it is not possible.

I'll start with this reality - to clone a mammoth we would have to use an elephant egg as a donor - and they are different species.

The human chimp relationship is similar.

I haven't found anything to suggest that the cell membrane, or other sub cellular structure characteristics vary between us and them.

So this brings up the idea you have - why not just remove the nucleus of a chimp embryonic cell and insert a human nucleus?

I will be using some free time in the next couple days to find out more specifics on this - it is an interesting idea, and I wonder if anyone else in this field has already tried - but again I haven't discovered any published research on this specific subject.

Have you found anything?

Keep on processing!

Answer 3

Even tho they share like 99% of DNA, they're not close enough to humans. I'm sure there has been some research on Chimps but to go the next step, you have to get to the real thing- humans.

Again, you're making the assumption that those embryos are viable and would become babies. There are plenty that never would-- that is, they're in fertility clinics. Those would be discarded. So in your line of thinking, we are holding babies hostage in fertility clinics. Or for that matter, commiting murder when those embryos are discarded. There is a reason for different names-- zygote, embryo, fetus -- for the different stages of pregnancy. They're not all the same life, if at all at some stages.

The problem is the ethical dilema of when life starts. Is an human egg life? If so, then every month a woman's potential offspring dies. We'll never solve that.

Answer 4

Animal stem cell research has been going on for years:
http://www.animaltechnologies.com/stemcell.htm

The problem is that most of the diseases that show promise of cure by use of embryonic human stem cells are non-existant in animals - Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Lou Gehrigs, etc.

I agree that life begins at conception. I am pro-life. Thats why the Senate passed S.3504 , which prohibits abortions specifically for research purposes.

What we are talking about with HR810, which the President vetoed, has nothing to do with abortion. It is not an embryo that has been "concieved", it was created in a laboratory. Thousands are discarded every year because they are no longer needed for invitro-fertilization.

Which is more immoral: allowing them to be used for potentially life-saving research, or throwing them in the trash?

Equating HR810 with abortion is mis-informed and ignorant.

abortion is (n):the termination of a pregnancy
conception is (n)the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both

These embryos are NOT the result of conception, as no one is pregnant, and are NOT aborted, as no one was pregnant. All they are is, to put it bluntly, medical waste. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Answer 5

This is smoke and mirrors. The argument is really not about stem cells. As you pointed out stem cells can be harvested from many other sources not killing any fetus in the process. The liberals can not say this because this would not show how mean the conservatives are. Forget the fact that the only real advances have come from stem cells harvested from these other sources. The liberals just want one more reason to push abortion on demand. Do not bring facts into the argument they only blur the fact that many conservatives do not want to kill babies to support an unproven medical technology (or for any other reason).

Answer 6

What the Darwinians forgot to tell you is , biologically humans are closer to daffodils.(True-Look it up)
And why not just continue research using adult stem cells , which actually have been successful.

Answer 7

Because we are not trying to cure chimp diseases.

Do you realize that these embryos are destroyed ANYWAY?

Think.

Answer 8

Shouldn't we leave science up to the scientist. I am sure that if they could use something else that would be as promising that the would.

Answer 9

About the same reason that humans can't breed with sheep.

Answer 10

Gee...I don't know!