Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MIT Prof: Embryonic Stem Cell Research Nowhere Close to Helping Patients
Life News ^ | 10/10/06 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 10/10/2006 4:17:41 PM PDT by wagglebee

Canberra, Australia (LifeNews.com) -- An MIT professor says that embryonic stem cell research is nowhere close to helping patients. He said that's because scientists haven't yet figured out how to stop embryonic stem cells from causing tumors when injected into patients.

Professor James Sherley, a stem cell researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was in Australia to talk with lawmakers about why they should resist backing legislation promoting human cloning.

Sherley said that embryonic stem cells cause tumors and cancers when injected into human tissue and, as a result, they can't be used to treat patients with various diseases. He said the tumors form because embryonic stem cells have the potential to turn into various other kinds of tissues -- including the wrong ones.

“When you put them in an environment where they can grow and develop, they make lots of different kind of tissues,” Sherley said, according to a Courier Mail newspaper report.

Sherley said that the "tumor formation property is an inherent feature of the cells" and warned that the possibility of overcoming it is likely very far into the future.

"And although some might say we can solve the tumor problem down the road, that's equivalent to saying we can solve the cancer problem and we may, but that's a long time coming," he explained.

According to the Courier Mail, the MIT professor said that the tumors embryonic stem cells cause are mostly benign but they could metastasize or produce chemicals that can adversely affect parts of the body.

Sherley also said that numerous American scientists agree with his view that embryonic stem cells cause problems and are a very long way off from helping patients but that they have been reluctant to speak out due to the highly political nature of the debate and worries over losing funding for their research.

He said adult stem cells have been successful in treating patients because they don't cause tumors when injected.

University of Melbourne Emeritus Professor of Medicine Thomas Martin agreed with Sherley's concerns and told lawmakers that a previous review of the science undertaken by the Lockhart panel failed to consider the tumors issue when issuing its report.

Martin said he did not think that embryonic stem cell research would even lead to cures for major diseases such as diabetes or Parkinson's.

Martin, an internationally recognized Fellow of the Royal Society, said the embryonic stem cells produced from human cloning would have the same problems.


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; embryonicstemcells; escr; mit; prolife; stemcellresearch; stemcells; teratomas; tumors
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
Sherley said that the "tumor formation property is an inherent feature of the cells" and warned that the possibility of overcoming it is likely very far into the future.

MIT is about as leftist as you can get, if they're jumping ship it should be obvious to all that embryonic stem cell research has no future.

1 posted on 10/10/2006 4:17:43 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback; narses; 8mmMauser

Pro-Life Ping


2 posted on 10/10/2006 4:18:13 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

What??!!?? But John Edwards told me that if Kerry was elected people like Chris Reeve would walk again. See evil Bush has taken all the embryonic stem cells and hidden them away so that people have to suffer. The minute that these cells are made available to the poor scientists who want to help people, all the world's problems will be cured.

At least that's what I was told for the last six years.


3 posted on 10/10/2006 4:24:28 PM PDT by mockingbyrd (Good heavens! What women these Christians have-----Libanus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd

When Ronald Reagan died in 2004 and Nancy Reagan seemingly endorsed ESC research, we were told it could help Christopher Reeve walk again, but Bush wouldn't allow it. Funny there was no mention of saving President Reagan's life.


4 posted on 10/10/2006 4:27:13 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
the possibility of overcoming it is likely very far into the future.

In other words, likely "nonexistent."

5 posted on 10/10/2006 4:30:09 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Pinged from Terri OCTOBER Dailies

8mm


6 posted on 10/10/2006 4:31:12 PM PDT by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam Tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"the possibility of overcoming it is likely very far into the future."
"if they're jumping ship it should be obvious to all that embryonic stem cell research has no future."
Non-sequitur at its biased worst. One thousand miles journey starts with the first step and continues with the next ones, but he who stops walking will never reach the goal. As long as there are smart people working on them, the things which are "likely very far into the future" become closer every day, like it was [and still is, 50 years later] with, for example, fusion reactors. Where would that field be if the work in it stopped after the first small tokamak?
7 posted on 10/10/2006 4:37:37 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
All of that might be plausible except for two very relevant FACTS:

1. Adult (including umbilical cord) stem cell research has resulted in over SIX DOZEN breakthroughs and cures.
2. Human life is destroyed to create embryonic stem cells.

8 posted on 10/10/2006 4:41:18 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Another non-sequitur. Research is not, and should not be, confined to any one direction.


9 posted on 10/10/2006 4:47:10 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

10 posted on 10/10/2006 4:49:34 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
1. Adult (including umbilical cord) stem cell research has resulted in over SIX DOZEN breakthroughs and cures.

That is the *fact* that I think is most relevant. It is, IMO, unconscionable that we direct so much money to a so-far failed theory (ESC research) instead of directing it toward a field that has been very successful and could do much more.

11 posted on 10/10/2006 4:49:46 PM PDT by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Fine, then if ESC research has so much potential then why aren't private corporations pouring billions of dollars into it the way they are with adult stem cells? There is no prohibition against it and according to you it would be a lucrative investment.


12 posted on 10/10/2006 4:50:17 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: speekinout

The main point is that private corporations aren't investing in ESC research, but they do with adult stem cell research, the know the difference between good and bad investments.


13 posted on 10/10/2006 4:52:05 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

They do, albeit not 'billions". There is privately funded research going on.


14 posted on 10/10/2006 4:58:17 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

"MIT is about as leftist as you can get, if they're jumping ship it should be obvious to all that embryonic stem cell research has no future."

That's one professor. Lotta others are still gung-ho.

Mrs VS


15 posted on 10/10/2006 5:27:09 PM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
for example, fusion reactors...

Probably about where were when we started, which is nowhere. Contained fusion power is still a ways off. Probably not the best example you could have mentioned.

Makes a GREAT explosive weapon, and and deterent, though, eh, Klaatu?

16 posted on 10/10/2006 5:32:25 PM PDT by Prospero (Ad Astra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I'm not so sure that's a good measure at this time. When so much public money is going to ESC research, private orgs don't need to spend their own money for it. The get gov't grants.


17 posted on 10/10/2006 5:34:13 PM PDT by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

With the latest ones we are way ahead from where we have started, - breakeven point within reach, and much better idea of what else is needed. Who knew it would turn out to be so difficult?


18 posted on 10/10/2006 5:44:30 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
MIT is about as leftist as you can get

It depends on the department. The finance department at the Sloan School, for instance (where I studied), leans right. There are quite a few right-leaning people in the economics department, too. Most people in the hard sciences lean left, but they tend to keep their politics seperate from their science. There's also a few prominent right-leaning guys hard scientists, like the atmospheric science prof who's a global warming skeptic.

The real problem is in the humanities departments; that's where Noam Chomsky is. Nearly everyone I knew in the finance and econ departments were embarassed that he and other "humanists" like him are affilated with the Institute.

19 posted on 10/10/2006 6:10:17 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The main point is that private corporations aren't investing in ESC research

I'm against ESC too, but that's a bad argument. Corporations seldom invest in basic scientific research because it is impossible for the funder of such research to capture all of its benefits. Basic research is a classic case of the public goods problem.

That's why, for example, corporations did not fund the research that resulted in the discovery of DNA or quantum physics, despite the fact that both these discoveries have generated benefits whose value exceeds the amount invested in the research by many orders of magnitude.

20 posted on 10/10/2006 6:15:13 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson