Today, researchers from Oregon have alleged that they have successfully derived embryonic stem cells from a cloned animal. I don't understand how people can see this as okay? Nothing, whether human or animal, should be cloned only to be used for its cells. It should be the choice of the animal--and I agree it's hard for an animal to give consent--and the human if under 18 to give medical practitoners permission to use his or her cells. It's on only fair.
If confirmed, this would be a world first time we have been able to successfully use cells from clones. This could also potentially lead to the creation of human embryonic stem cells through cloning, which would really give the relgious sect and other human rights activists something to complain about. Though I am a supporter of willingly donating stem cells for research, I am strongly against creating clones to aid the lives of those already in existence. That's disgusting and inhumane.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
New Stem Cell Facility to Open in Jersey
It is estimated that the building will cost $150 million and should be completed by 2011. Standing at 18 stories, the new research facility is being built in the city of New Brunswick near Rutgers University. Interestingly enough, the building will also feature a Christopher Reeve, the first Superman, pavillion. Reeve promoted stem cell research after he was paralyzed in a 1995 horse riding accident. Reeve died in 2004 at age 52.
This is great news! Not Reeve's death, but that a facility is being constructed. New Jersey is the first state to have used public money to build a stem cell research facility.
Of course all of this good can't exist without opposition. Those against abortion have already filed suit, because embryonic stem cell research destroys human embryos. Next month voters will be asked to approve borrowing $450 million for stem cell research grants.
Here are some quotes by abortion foes...
Marie Tasy, the executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, which filed the lawsuit, charged supporters of state investment in stem cell research with "shamelessly exploiting the sick and infirmed with empty promises of miracle cures and false economic benefits."
Gunter Schemmann, a cancer researcher at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, held a sign during the ceremony that featured an embryo and read, "Even then you were precious."
"I believe human life starts at conception and to destroy an embryo to get stem cells is to destroy human life," he said.
This is great news! Not Reeve's death, but that a facility is being constructed. New Jersey is the first state to have used public money to build a stem cell research facility.
Of course all of this good can't exist without opposition. Those against abortion have already filed suit, because embryonic stem cell research destroys human embryos. Next month voters will be asked to approve borrowing $450 million for stem cell research grants.
Here are some quotes by abortion foes...
Marie Tasy, the executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, which filed the lawsuit, charged supporters of state investment in stem cell research with "shamelessly exploiting the sick and infirmed with empty promises of miracle cures and false economic benefits."
Gunter Schemmann, a cancer researcher at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, held a sign during the ceremony that featured an embryo and read, "Even then you were precious."
"I believe human life starts at conception and to destroy an embryo to get stem cells is to destroy human life," he said.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Embryonic Stem Cells Helped Repair Heart Damage...
for a rat... Heart Disease as defined by the National Institute of Health, "impairs the heart's ability to pump blood and sustain the body's organs and tissues," and therefore it's not something to be taken lightly.
Still, even though embryonic stem cells have proven to repair heart damage for rats, scientists are facing many critical challenges getting these cells to work with humans. Some of the issues include the creation of enough new heart cells, making sure transplanted heart cells are not contaminated with immature or other cell types, and ensuring the heart cells' survival after transplantation; some of these issues are also common among other medical transplants.
As a solution to their problems, scientists are creating new techniques to generate large numbers of pure cardiomyocytes (heart muscle cells) from human embryonic stem cells abbreviated by(hESCs). Additonally, scientists are forming stem cell cocktails to prevent the deaths of stem cells after they are transplanted.
To digress slightly, after the scientists transplanted the stem cells, they induced the rats with heart attacks to examine the results. They found that cardiomyocytes were being supported by rat blood vessels in the treated rat hearts. The treated rat hearts also demonstrated an improved ability to pump blood.
Too bad we're not rats.
Still, even though embryonic stem cells have proven to repair heart damage for rats, scientists are facing many critical challenges getting these cells to work with humans. Some of the issues include the creation of enough new heart cells, making sure transplanted heart cells are not contaminated with immature or other cell types, and ensuring the heart cells' survival after transplantation; some of these issues are also common among other medical transplants.
As a solution to their problems, scientists are creating new techniques to generate large numbers of pure cardiomyocytes (heart muscle cells) from human embryonic stem cells abbreviated by(hESCs). Additonally, scientists are forming stem cell cocktails to prevent the deaths of stem cells after they are transplanted.
To digress slightly, after the scientists transplanted the stem cells, they induced the rats with heart attacks to examine the results. They found that cardiomyocytes were being supported by rat blood vessels in the treated rat hearts. The treated rat hearts also demonstrated an improved ability to pump blood.
Too bad we're not rats.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Since Embryonic Research Has So Many Restrictions, Scientists Consider Using the Umbilical Cord
Yup, that's right, I said, "Umbilical Cords!" Those flexible cordlike structures containing blood vessels that attach to humans or other mammalian fetuses to placentas during gestation are proving to actually possess some worth after birth.
After we're born, doctors ask the father to cut the umbilical cord of their newborn, and then the doctor throws the cord away. But now, doctors are reconsidering this common act, because using blood from the umbilical cord has already proven to be successful.
Still, even with some limited success, there are some very important variables within this particular form of stem cell research. “Banking cord blood ,” the term used for saving stem cells from the umbilicus, is extremely expensive and for some “too high of an expense" (Verter). The exact figure is never specified, but it is high enough for “only a limited number of institutions [to] have the funding to maintain public banks” (Verter). Storing cord blood is pricy because it requires freezers, buildings to hold the frozen blood that follow medical regulations, and also personnel (Verter). Another variable of cord blood is that evidence proves it only works for children. If one were to weigh more than one hundred pounds– more than half of the people in the United States weigh over one hundred pounds–-the amount of stem cells harvested from the umbilicus would not be found sufficient (Verter). Thus, stem cells from the umbilicus would only be able to help children, which is great, but is it worth halting the research of embryonic stem cells which could potentially benefit everyone?
On the bright side, this argument does not lend itself to the problems associated with fetuses or religion.
Verter, Frances. "Medical Pros and Cons to Banking Umbilical Cord Blood." 15 Dec. 2004. Medical Pros and Cons Cord Blood Banking. 15 Dec. 2004 http://www.parents guidecordblood.com/medmotiv.html>.
After we're born, doctors ask the father to cut the umbilical cord of their newborn, and then the doctor throws the cord away. But now, doctors are reconsidering this common act, because using blood from the umbilical cord has already proven to be successful.
Still, even with some limited success, there are some very important variables within this particular form of stem cell research. “Banking cord blood ,” the term used for saving stem cells from the umbilicus, is extremely expensive and for some “too high of an expense" (Verter). The exact figure is never specified, but it is high enough for “only a limited number of institutions [to] have the funding to maintain public banks” (Verter). Storing cord blood is pricy because it requires freezers, buildings to hold the frozen blood that follow medical regulations, and also personnel (Verter). Another variable of cord blood is that evidence proves it only works for children. If one were to weigh more than one hundred pounds– more than half of the people in the United States weigh over one hundred pounds–-the amount of stem cells harvested from the umbilicus would not be found sufficient (Verter). Thus, stem cells from the umbilicus would only be able to help children, which is great, but is it worth halting the research of embryonic stem cells which could potentially benefit everyone?
On the bright side, this argument does not lend itself to the problems associated with fetuses or religion.
Verter, Frances. "Medical Pros and Cons to Banking Umbilical Cord Blood." 15 Dec. 2004. Medical Pros and Cons Cord Blood Banking. 15 Dec. 2004 http://www.parents guidecordblood.com/medmotiv.html>.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Some Interesting Responses
Because I can't always catch grammmatical errors, I have had a few of my friends proof read my past posts. One of them, who prefers to remain nameless, asked me this question after reading my last blog, "If embryos aren't technically fetuses, which makes them not human, why can't we use all of them for research?" My response to him was basically a reiteration of my past blogs, "conservatives and religous organizations feel it's inhumane, so they have restricted the amount of embryos availabe." He then said this, "Well I guess that's okay. Humans--especially Americans--tend to do things not in moderation." I think he's got a point.
Humans should not be bred to aid the lives of the powerful reducing the value of human life and making them commodities or prized possessions. This is why we need the government to regulate growing human/fetal farms, not restricting the use of already existing embryos. Yes, I agree that humans do tend to drain all resources to ensure their own survival, a “survival of the fittest” mentality. But if we can create laws controling this field, everyone's worries can be avoided. It's not like you or I can go home into our laboratory and conduct stem-cell research. We would need specific equipment that is found in certain facilities. Is the government worried that stem cells will be sold on the black market? What's really the issue here? Oh wait, I know this answer. Religion.
Humans should not be bred to aid the lives of the powerful reducing the value of human life and making them commodities or prized possessions. This is why we need the government to regulate growing human/fetal farms, not restricting the use of already existing embryos. Yes, I agree that humans do tend to drain all resources to ensure their own survival, a “survival of the fittest” mentality. But if we can create laws controling this field, everyone's worries can be avoided. It's not like you or I can go home into our laboratory and conduct stem-cell research. We would need specific equipment that is found in certain facilities. Is the government worried that stem cells will be sold on the black market? What's really the issue here? Oh wait, I know this answer. Religion.
If I Agree About Not Growing "Human/Fetal Farms," What Other Options are There?
What about using abandoned and/or frozen embryos? Since scientists cannot use undestroyed embryos, wouldn't it be smart for them to focus on the defected and frozen embryos donated to research by parents? Oh wait, scientists cannot touch those either.
There are thousands of embryos left untouched and unresearched every year because of Bush's restrictions. So guess what? These donated embryos are being thrown away. Why? Because the embryos are healthy.
Let's look at it this way. The government is already unhappy women have the right to choose, so in order to make women opt not to donate their embryos to research, they say, "If you do not choose to have this baby, we will not allow you to donate your healthy baby/fetus, which could possibly help cure someone else's disease. Instead, it will sit in a freezer for a while and then be thrown away." Moreover, they are saying, "we will only allow researchers to use defected embryos--people that will be born with some form of disability; let's not even give them a chance to live."
In vitro fertilization clinics, there tends to be more embryos than can placed in the mother, leaving the embryos to be stored or frozen. Since there is no other probable use for them, why not donate them to stem cell research? Why not let the parents make the right decision and let the cells of their child save desperate lives, just as we do after an auto accident by using the organs of those who have tragically died? Also, since this is one of the only ways stem cell research can continue in most states, why not at least inform the parents of their rights?
Another intersting point would then be, isn't the government also guilty of abortion? The majority of these babies/fetuses are being thrown away, because the government won't allow scientists to research them. What do you think is the best option for these frozen embryos? To be researched and save lives or to be thrown away?
There are thousands of embryos left untouched and unresearched every year because of Bush's restrictions. So guess what? These donated embryos are being thrown away. Why? Because the embryos are healthy.
Let's look at it this way. The government is already unhappy women have the right to choose, so in order to make women opt not to donate their embryos to research, they say, "If you do not choose to have this baby, we will not allow you to donate your healthy baby/fetus, which could possibly help cure someone else's disease. Instead, it will sit in a freezer for a while and then be thrown away." Moreover, they are saying, "we will only allow researchers to use defected embryos--people that will be born with some form of disability; let's not even give them a chance to live."
In vitro fertilization clinics, there tends to be more embryos than can placed in the mother, leaving the embryos to be stored or frozen. Since there is no other probable use for them, why not donate them to stem cell research? Why not let the parents make the right decision and let the cells of their child save desperate lives, just as we do after an auto accident by using the organs of those who have tragically died? Also, since this is one of the only ways stem cell research can continue in most states, why not at least inform the parents of their rights?
Another intersting point would then be, isn't the government also guilty of abortion? The majority of these babies/fetuses are being thrown away, because the government won't allow scientists to research them. What do you think is the best option for these frozen embryos? To be researched and save lives or to be thrown away?
Monday, October 8, 2007
I've Tried to Avoid Using "The Lingo"
As fascinating as science truly is---yup that's sarcasm--the vast majority of people in the world find it boring. Still, and regardless of how boring stem cell jargon can be, it is necessary for me to posit this information, so that we're all on the same page. I apologize in advance, but will try to make this post as painless to read as possible.
What are embryonic stem cells?
Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.
The definition in English...
Embryonic stem cells are found in infants, and “are blank cells that have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body – nerve cells, heart cells, and kidney cells” (Berger). For instance, if Johnny happened to get into a car crash and ruptured some of the muscles in his spine, the chances of Johnny someday being able to walk or run would be minimal. However, stem cell evidence suggests that one day in the future, Johnny would be given back the life taken from him. Stem cells would form new spinal muscles, and replace the torn or damaged muscles in Johnny’s spine. In the future, situations like car crashes and the diagnosis of mental diseases will not end a person’s life, because stem cells are showing much
promise in “becoming certain types [of cells]” (Berger). This idea of saving helpless lives is what makes stem cell research a worthwhile endeavor. Now, people are forced to settle into the idea of paralyzation, but the use of stem cells gives them an alternative. It gives them a second chance.
What are adult stem cells?
An adult stem cell is an undifferentiated cell that has not yet generated structures or manufactured proteins of a specialized cell type and is found among differentiated cells. Differentiated cells are the process whereby an undifferentiated embryonic cell acquires the features of a specialized cell such as a heart, liver, or muscle cell in a tissue or organ, can renew itself, and can differentiate to yield the major specialized cell types of the tissue or organ. The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. Some scientists now use the term somatic stem cell instead of adult stem cell. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are defined by their origin (the inner cell mass of the blastocyst), the origin of adult stem cells in mature tissues is unknown.
Research on adult stem cells has recently generated a great deal of excitement. Scientists have found adult stem cells in many more tissues than they once thought possible. This finding has led scientists to ask whether adult stem cells could be used for transplants. In fact, adult blood forming stem cells from bone marrow have been used in transplants for 30 years. Certain kinds of adult stem cells seem to have the ability to differentiate into a number of different cell types, given the right conditions. If this differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis of therapies for many serious common diseases.
What are the cells differences and similarities?
Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Pluripotent cells are when a single stem cell is able to become all of the various cell types that make up the body. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.
Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.
A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.
What I hope we all understand now after reading the above definitions is that there is a huge advantage in using embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells, because they are more adaptable. The problem is though, scientists have a limited supply of embryonic stem cells, because of people like President Bush, and organizations like the Catholic Church and some Christian groups who believe this promising science is inhumane.
Why do they believe this science is inhumane, and as a consequence have severely slowed research?
One of the reasons is that the religious sect believes human/fetal farms will be the cause of the legalization of stem cell research. Human farms, also called "fetal farms" are where human embryos are gestated in a non-human uterus or from human pregnancies and are created specifically for the purpose of research.
What's probably surprising is that I believe the religious sect are right for showing concern towards growing human farms, but their argument using the Bible is weak (What Happened to Separation of Church and State.) Can't we all just agree fetuses, babies--whatever you want to call them--should not be grown to benefit others. There's no need to involve religion. But regardless, just because the government is scared this will be the outcome of the legalization of stem cell research does not justify slowing research and progress. To me, it seems more practical to legalize stem cell research and closely examine the scientists. It's not like these people are incapable of following rules. They are what I would assume to be people of integrity, intelligence, and extreme care considering how many people and organizations have fought to legalize the science. Does the government really think scientists would handle the unrestricted legalization with a disregarding mind and jeopardize the entire fields public image? If so, that's pretty sad.
Berger, Eleni "Research Avenue Adds Fuel to Stem Sell Controversy." 18 July 2001. CNN.com. CNN. 25 Oct 2004
What are embryonic stem cells?
Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.
The definition in English...
Embryonic stem cells are found in infants, and “are blank cells that have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body – nerve cells, heart cells, and kidney cells” (Berger). For instance, if Johnny happened to get into a car crash and ruptured some of the muscles in his spine, the chances of Johnny someday being able to walk or run would be minimal. However, stem cell evidence suggests that one day in the future, Johnny would be given back the life taken from him. Stem cells would form new spinal muscles, and replace the torn or damaged muscles in Johnny’s spine. In the future, situations like car crashes and the diagnosis of mental diseases will not end a person’s life, because stem cells are showing much
promise in “becoming certain types [of cells]” (Berger). This idea of saving helpless lives is what makes stem cell research a worthwhile endeavor. Now, people are forced to settle into the idea of paralyzation, but the use of stem cells gives them an alternative. It gives them a second chance.
What are adult stem cells?
An adult stem cell is an undifferentiated cell that has not yet generated structures or manufactured proteins of a specialized cell type and is found among differentiated cells. Differentiated cells are the process whereby an undifferentiated embryonic cell acquires the features of a specialized cell such as a heart, liver, or muscle cell in a tissue or organ, can renew itself, and can differentiate to yield the major specialized cell types of the tissue or organ. The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. Some scientists now use the term somatic stem cell instead of adult stem cell. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are defined by their origin (the inner cell mass of the blastocyst), the origin of adult stem cells in mature tissues is unknown.
Research on adult stem cells has recently generated a great deal of excitement. Scientists have found adult stem cells in many more tissues than they once thought possible. This finding has led scientists to ask whether adult stem cells could be used for transplants. In fact, adult blood forming stem cells from bone marrow have been used in transplants for 30 years. Certain kinds of adult stem cells seem to have the ability to differentiate into a number of different cell types, given the right conditions. If this differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis of therapies for many serious common diseases.
What are the cells differences and similarities?
Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Pluripotent cells are when a single stem cell is able to become all of the various cell types that make up the body. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.
Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.
A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.
What I hope we all understand now after reading the above definitions is that there is a huge advantage in using embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells, because they are more adaptable. The problem is though, scientists have a limited supply of embryonic stem cells, because of people like President Bush, and organizations like the Catholic Church and some Christian groups who believe this promising science is inhumane.
Why do they believe this science is inhumane, and as a consequence have severely slowed research?
One of the reasons is that the religious sect believes human/fetal farms will be the cause of the legalization of stem cell research. Human farms, also called "fetal farms" are where human embryos are gestated in a non-human uterus or from human pregnancies and are created specifically for the purpose of research.
What's probably surprising is that I believe the religious sect are right for showing concern towards growing human farms, but their argument using the Bible is weak (What Happened to Separation of Church and State.) Can't we all just agree fetuses, babies--whatever you want to call them--should not be grown to benefit others. There's no need to involve religion. But regardless, just because the government is scared this will be the outcome of the legalization of stem cell research does not justify slowing research and progress. To me, it seems more practical to legalize stem cell research and closely examine the scientists. It's not like these people are incapable of following rules. They are what I would assume to be people of integrity, intelligence, and extreme care considering how many people and organizations have fought to legalize the science. Does the government really think scientists would handle the unrestricted legalization with a disregarding mind and jeopardize the entire fields public image? If so, that's pretty sad.
Berger, Eleni "Research Avenue Adds Fuel to Stem Sell Controversy." 18 July 2001. CNN.com. CNN. 25 Oct 2004
I'm Spiritual NOT Religious
Even though I went to a private school until 9th grade, at home it was expected that I tolerated other viewpoints. In discussions, we had to acknowledge the other side of arguments, and learned that we could not enforce and/or shove our beliefs down anyone else's throat; I wish our current president felt the same.
Because of the pressure received from the Republican Party, in 2001 President Bush announced that "he would support limited federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research." This made furthering stem cell research much more difficult, because stem cells could only be extracted from the “already destroyed embryos” (Lockyer); destroyed embryos are embryos that would never be able to grow into fully functioning humans. I don't understand religous snobbery. Stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize the medical field, opening countless doors to other cures for diseases like AIDS and HIV, yet the majority of research has been severely slowed because of religous beliefs.
What Happened to Separation of Church and State?
Granted one's religous beliefs do effect their values, why should that specific belief effect everyones? It's not right. We should give people information and allow them, trust them, to make up their own minds. I guess I'm one of the few who still believe in freedom of choice.
I personally find the video below very difficult and uncomfortable to watch. It is an example of how federal laws are effecting legislatures around the country. What's even more disturbing though is that his condition could be cured. Here's a great example of how one powerful individual in DC is hurting people 3,000 miles away from himself.
Because of the pressure received from the Republican Party, in 2001 President Bush announced that "he would support limited federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research." This made furthering stem cell research much more difficult, because stem cells could only be extracted from the “already destroyed embryos” (Lockyer); destroyed embryos are embryos that would never be able to grow into fully functioning humans. I don't understand religous snobbery. Stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize the medical field, opening countless doors to other cures for diseases like AIDS and HIV, yet the majority of research has been severely slowed because of religous beliefs.
What Happened to Separation of Church and State?
Granted one's religous beliefs do effect their values, why should that specific belief effect everyones? It's not right. We should give people information and allow them, trust them, to make up their own minds. I guess I'm one of the few who still believe in freedom of choice.
I personally find the video below very difficult and uncomfortable to watch. It is an example of how federal laws are effecting legislatures around the country. What's even more disturbing though is that his condition could be cured. Here's a great example of how one powerful individual in DC is hurting people 3,000 miles away from himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)