What do you think about stem cell research?

Question

Do you agree, or no? What do you think are the benefits of it, and the cosequences?

Answer 1

I totally agree to venture in any research to find the cures for any diseases. Stem cell research has its ethical issues. The Pro life movement is for using adult stem cells from cadavers or other organ donors. They are mostly against using the embryonic fetal stem cells; which has a more promising result. Consequences: one would view it as genetic engineering It's going against nature. Abortion could be rampant so these progenitor embryonic stem cells would be made more readily available.

Future Directions
Ultimately, type 1 diabetes may prove to be especially difficult to cure, because the cells are destroyed when the body's own immune system attacks and destroys them. This autoimmunity must be overcome if researchers hope to use transplanted cells to replace the damaged ones. Many researchers believe that at least initially, immunosuppressive therapy similar to that used in the Edmonton protocol will be beneficial. A potential advantage of embryonic cells is that, in theory, they could be engineered to express the appropriate genes that would allow them to escape or reduce detection by the immune system. Others have suggested that a technology should be developed to encapsulate or embed islet cells derived from islet stem or progenitor cells in a material that would allow small molecules such as insulin to pass through freely, but would not allow interactions between the islet cells and cells of the immune system. Such encapsulated cells could secrete insulin into the blood stream, but remain inaccessible to the immune system.

Before any cell-based therapy to treat diabetes makes it to the clinic, many safety issues must be addressed . A major consideration is whether any precursor or stem-like cells transplanted into the body might revert to a more pluripotent state and induce the formation of tumors. These risks would seemingly be lessened if fully differentiated cells are used in transplantation.

But before any kind of human islet-precursor cells can be used therapeutically, a renewable source of human stem cells must be developed. Although many progenitor cells have been identified in adult tissue, few of these cells can be cultured for multiple generations. Embryonic stem cells show the greatest promise for generating cell lines that will be free of contaminants and that can self renew. However, most researchers agree that until a therapeutically useful source of human islet cells is developed, all avenues of research should be exhaustively investigated, including both adult and embryonic sources of tissue.




Like a blank microchip that can be programmed to perform many different tasks, stem cells are undifferentiated, 'blank' cells that do not yet have a specific physiological function. When the proper conditions occur in the body or in the laboratory, stem cells begin to develop into specialized tissues and organs. Stem cells are also distinguished from other cells by their ability to self-renew-in other words, to divide and give rise to more stem cells

.
Why is stem cell research so important?
Stem cells are the source of all tissues of the body, and understanding their properties is fundamental to our understanding of human biology in health and disease. In particular, stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells to treat a wide variety of diseases and disabilities, including diabetes, neurological disease such as Parkinson and Alzheimer's. cardiovascular disease, blood disease and many other conditions. Defective stem cells also appear to underlie many forms of cancer, and by understanding their properties it should be possible to develop new types of anti-cancer therapy.



What is the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells?
Some organs contain stem cells that persist throughout adult life and contribute to the maintenance and repair of those organs. Not every organ has been shown to contain stem cells, however, and generally adult stem cells have restricted developmental potential, in that their capacity for proliferation is limited and they can give rise only to a few cell types. Further, islet cell transplant recipients face a lifetime of immunosuppressant therapy, which makes them susceptible to other serious infections and diseases


Embryonic stem cells, by contrast, can divide almost indefinitely and can give rise to every cell type in the body, suggesting that they may be the most versatile source of cells for transplantation therapy.


Why is there so much controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research?
At present, the only known way to derive embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of a blastocyst-stage embryo. Some people are opposed to this research because they consider the blastocyst to be morally equivalent to a human individual.


What is the source of embryos used for making embryonic stem cells?
The human embryonic stem cell lines that have been created at Harvard are derived from frozen embryos left over after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. These early stage embryos were donated, with informed consent, by patients who had completed their treatment. In the future, Harvard researchers also hope to derive embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer.




What is somatic cell nuclear transfer?
Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), sometimes known as 'therapeutic cloning', involves transferring a nucleus from a donor cell, such as a skin cell, into an unfertilized egg. The injected egg is then induced to divide, and when it reaches a few hundred cells, the so-called blastocyst stage, it can be used to derive embryonic stem cells that are genetically identical to the original donor. No sperm is involved, and therefore no fertilization occurs, in this procedure


There are currently hundreds of thousands of surplus embryos in storage. One source estimated that there were 400,000 stored embryos by mid-2003. 4 However, a minority of pro-lifers and a majority of pro-life organizations object to the use of embryos in research. They feel that a few-days-old embryo is a human person. Extracting its stem cells kills the embryo -- an act that they consider to be murder. Stem cells can now be grown in the laboratory, so (in a pinch) some research can be done using existing stem cells. No further harvesting needs to be made from embryos. However, existing stem cell lines are gradually degrading and will soon be useless for research.

Stem cells can also be extracted from adult tissue, without harm to the subject. Unfortunately, they are difficult to remove and are severely limited in quantity. There has been a consensus among researchers that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness -- that they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells in the human body. However, some evidence is emerging that indicates that adult cells may be more flexible than has previously been believed.



Research continues in U.S. private labs and in both government and private labs in the UK, Japan, France, Australia, and other countries. On 2002-SEP, Governor Davis of California signed bill SB 253 into law. It is the first law in the U.S. that permits stem cell research. Davis simultaneously signed a bill that permanently bans all human cloning in the state for reproduction purposes -- i.e. any effort to create a cloned individual.

Following former president Ronald Reagan's death due to Alzheimer's in 2004-JUN -- a slow, lingering disease that took a decade to kill him -- Nancy Reagan and all of her family, except for Michael Reagan, mounted a campaign to encourage President Bush to relax restrictions on embryo stem cell research. Fifty-eight senators, almost all Democrats, sent a letter to President Bush, urging the same action.

A federal bill passed the House on 2005-MAY-24 to allow government funded research on embryonic stem cells extracted from surplus embryos in fertility clinics. It was later passed by the Senate. President Bush vetoed it -- his first veto

Answer 2

It's all a bunch of hype. Everything reported is pure speculation and hope.

Nothing useful has been 'created' yet. If it ever does, it will take at least 10 years for FDA approval, and in the meantime, will be experimental, unavailable in the US, and beyond a normal person's financial means.

Stem cells have been around a long time. Everybody thinks that they are this magical new beanstalk thing that will create pancreases and brains or whatever. It's really annoying. Stem cells require a DNA programming to differentiate into specific cells that they will finally be. Has anybody recently been able to program stem cells to grow into whatever they want? Heck no! There has been some advances in mapping DNA and RNA structures, and some cell program copying.

We are a long ways out from custom growing body parts. People are naive to think this is right around the corner.

Answer 3

I think the idea overall it's great for changing the face of medicine.
I think it will initially have more promise for repairing damaged heart tissue after heart attacks, etc.

As for Type 1 diabetes, we have not solved the autoimmunity issue yet. Just transplanting more cells will not cure the underlying disease. That's our big obstacle. Stem cells (if we can ever get them to be viable and get the political red tape removed) are only 1 part of the puzzle.

There is also new evidence to suggest that beta cells can be regenerated (from any existing beta cells, and from the spleen in long-term Type 1) in some Type 1's once the autoimmunity is removed. If this is the case, stem cells may not even be needed.

P.S. I agree with Dr. Evil. To be honest, we are producing beta cells (from stem cells) that have TEETH. They also do not produce insulin in response to glucose, and pose a huge cancer risk as we have no way to stop them from dividing uncontrollably. I honestly don't think stem cells are any kind of immediate answer for Type 1.

Answer 4

For it all the way. I believe there are many benefits to it. That we are just digging the surface. I won't say my view on what was previously done to get stem cells. But now I think the way they found to get stem cells, everyone should be happy now.
I read an article that says that in the future stem cells might be used for plastic surgery like instead of silicon or saleen implants they'll make the implants out of stem cells. They believe it'll cause fewer probelms.

Answer 5

The potential benefits are enormous - no one disputes that. Quite recently (like last week) it was reported that stem cells taken from amniotic fluid are very useful for research. There would be an awful lot of amniotic fluid available, as it can be taken without any risk to the mother or fetus. Therefore, the whole debate may become moot in a very short time.

Answer 6

Abortion may be authorized but it's incorrect and evil and outright murder to an innocent unborn youngster. Feel about it that child will in no way see daylight or laugh or trip a motorbike or revel in having associates or comprehend the love of a guardian. This unborn child will never recognize the matters that we take with no consideration in our everyday lifes. Plus that youngster is torn to pieces for the duration of the abortion that is without doubt one of the ways it is killed ripped limb from limb. So hence I feel stem cell study is improper additionally. In the end you could have already brought on the unborn little one a lot distress and suffering and brought it's lifestyles from it so as a minimum leave their bad bodies on my own. Abortion and Stem telephone study are just one more one among mankind's vile and cruel and evil things. I pray that God may have mercy on all of those that get abortions and have had abortions. I am happy that those bad toddlers will reside with him and heaven forever. I may not make it there myself who knows but as a minimum they would. Simply so you know no baby is an accident all of them come here with a motive however some in no way have the risk to meet there rationale considering that of the cruelty of mankind. Sooner or later it is going to come to cross that we will have to account for the matters now we have performed and provided that we're truly sorry and regretful for these matters do we be forgiven. I know that there are some who will see this otherwise than me comparable to atheist and other persons of non-christian and even some christian religions however that is great ultimately of time it should come to cross that what I consider is incorrect however i do not care considering that i am completely happy for now. Well there you could have my opinion.

Answer 7

I think it's great!
Stem cells can be used to cure many otherwise non-curable diseases by 'cloning' organs. Imagine someone in your family needs a kidney, and one can be grown from stem cells that were collected from umbilical cord blood during the birth of your baby.
This valuable resource is otherwise WASTED.

Answer 8

Bring it on. And for all of those pro-life ******* who taught my kids in the Catholic school that I send them to, it ain't about cloning or killing babies. I am glad it passed in my state and I hope they cure a bunch of diseases and don't cure the stupid butt wipes that voted no.