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

Skip to comments.

The truth about embryonic stem cell (ESC) therapies
CERC ^ | 10.17.06

Posted on 10/27/2006 1:33:14 PM PDT by Coleus

The truth about the technical challenges and scientific hurdles for embryonic stem-cell (ESC) therapies is finally getting out.   The truth,
of course, is that there are no human embryonic stem-cell therapies even in clinical trial, let alone ready for therapy, and there have been no major treatment models in animals, either. Adult stem cells, however, have already been successful in treating more than seventy different diseases in actual human beings.  Readers of First Things are well aware that the main objection to current methods of embryonic stem-cell research is that they involve the destruction of living human embryos, that is, human beings at the embryonic stage in their lives. This is a principled objection to the direct and intentional killing of human beings.

There is no principled objection to stem-cell research, not even to embryonic stem-cell research, provided that methods that do not destroy embryos are pursued. In fact, the May 2006 issue of First Things ran an article by E. Christian Brugger explaining and defending one such method, Altered Nuclear Transfer — Oocyte Assisted Reproduction (ANT-OAR), which has received broad support from the pro-life intellectual community. There are also techniques to dedifferentiate (reprogram) an adult somatic cell back to a state of pluripotency (in other words, to convert it directly to an embryonic-like stem cell). In both these methods, no embryos are created, no embryos are destroyed. All citizens could in good faith support these methods of producing embryonic-type (pluripotent) stem cells.

Many still persist in preferring embryonic stem-cell research—but why? Some have claimed that because the cells are younger and undifferentiated, they will be more malleable and capable of being turned into any tissue type. Furthermore, given cloning technologies, embryonic stem cells could be created from cloned human embryos (cloned from the patient) and thus avoid the risk of immune rejection. (As a separate argument, some research scientists argue that work with embryonic stem cells will advance knowledge of cellular biology, but this is a separate claim from the trumpeting — indeed, hyping — of supposed direct therapeutic uses of embryonic stem cells made in recent years.)  Leaders in the stem-cell community, however, are beginning to speak out about scientific hurdles embryonic stem-cell therapies face. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media in the United States has chosen to ignore it.


Leaders in the stem-cell community, however, are beginning to speak out about scientific hurdles embryonic stem-cell therapies face. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media in the United States has chosen to ignore it.


Luckily, the Australian media has been paying attention. The Australian ran a series of articles this week about Dr. James Sherley, associate professor of biological engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who is lecturing in Australia about stem cells and cloning. The Australian reports “concern about scientific dishonesty had driven him out of his Massachusetts Institute of Technology laboratory and into the public debate.” Why? The Australian summarizes, “supporters of embryonic stem cell research ignored evidence that adult stem cells had far greater potential, if they could be produced in large quantities.” Sherley is now at work on methods to mass produce these cells. Sherley argues that adult stem cells present greater promise for medicinal cures because they are already specialized into the tissue-type needed, and — because they are harvested directly from the patient in need of therapy — they have the same genotype and thus avoid the risk of immune rejection (without need for cloning or embryo destruction). As Sherley put it: “If you have a problem with your liver, you need a liver stem cell, you don’t need an embryonic stem cell.”

Embryonic stem cells, meanwhile, have several major problems, notably — and seldom mentioned — they cause tumors and form cancerous growths. Sherley explains it this way: “When you put them [ESC] in an environment where they can grow and develop, they make lots of different kind of tissues. This tumour formation property is an inherent feature of the cells. And all you have to do is simply inject them into an animal tissue — this happens at very high efficiency.” Currently, there are no solutions to this problem on the horizon. As Sherley put it: “And although some might say we can solve the tumour 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.” Ironically, pointing out this scientific concern will no doubt result in being labeled “anti-science” or “science-phobic.” Sherley recognizes that pressure from the media and from patient groups desperate for cures who have had their hopes raised by hype from politicians and members of the scientific community has led other scientists to fear speaking out. The Australian reports: “Sherley said many scientists agreed with his views but were too scared to speak out over concerns it could affect their funding and reputation.”

If you doubt this is the case, one need only look to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) — the multibillion-dollar institute dedicated to embryonic stem-cell research on the California taxpayers’ dime — and their recent proposed strategic report. The report states: “[I]t is unlikely that CIRM will be able to fully develop stem cell therapy for routine clinical use during the ten years of the plan. Within that time span, however, we will be able to advance therapies for several diseases to early stage clinical trials, and to have therapies for other diseases in the pipeline.” For the next ten years, the best they can promise is “early stage clinical trials” and therapies “in the pipeline.” The Mercury News in an article last week reports that the Institute’s president, Zach Hall, “predicted it might take 15 years before the institute’s research results in a medical product.” Meanwhile, adult stem-cell therapies are healing patients now — despite the fact that they receive only a fraction of the funding. One can hope that the alternative techniques to produce embryonic-type (pluripotent) stem cells are soon perfected and that in the near future we will have a workable method to produce embryonic stem cells without destroying living human embryos. Even when that is accomplished (studies are being reviewed as we speak), the resulting cells will still have the same cancerous-tumor-formation problem that all embryonic stem cells possess. This leaves one question: Given the severe ethical problems with current methods of embryonic stem-cell research and the inherent scientific problems with tumor formation, why have they been hyped to such a large extent while adult stems have gone unnoticed? One can only guess. Ryan T. Anderson is a junior fellow at First Things. He is also the assistant director of the Program on Bioethics and Human Dignity at the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, N.J.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: adultstemcells; cerc; embryonicstemcells; escr; jimtalent; missouri; stemcells
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 10/27/2006 1:33:16 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
Embryonic Stem Cell Research on Animals Has FAILED to Produce Any Cures or Treatments in 25 Years
2 posted on 10/27/2006 1:34:23 PM PDT by Coleus (Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Bump


3 posted on 10/27/2006 1:39:13 PM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm

http://www.advancedcell.com/scientific-papers/


4 posted on 10/27/2006 1:49:02 PM PDT by Fighting Irish (Béagán agus a rá go maith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

http://www.advancedcell.com/recent-news-item/human-stem-cells-help-blinded-rats-study


5 posted on 10/27/2006 1:49:45 PM PDT by Fighting Irish (Béagán agus a rá go maith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
The Mercury News in an article last week reports that the Institute’s
president, Zach Hall, “predicted it might take 15 years before the
institute’s research results in a medical product
.”


And the red-ink state of CA decided to put $3-$6 BILLION of chips
down as their bet for this.

On behalf of California's ESC researchers and their allied lawyers,
publicists and lobbyists, let me say:
"THANKS, SUCKERS!"
6 posted on 10/27/2006 1:54:52 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
Advanced Cell Technologies have lost credibility.

Error Sparks Stem Cell Debate Confusion

...Last week, the California biotech company Advanced Cell Technology proposed a way out of the impasse. Writing in the scientific journal Nature, ACT researchers described a way to make stem cells from single cells that had been removed from embryos. Because fertility doctors routinely remove single cells from embryos for genetic testing and then successfully implant them, the technique could in theory be used to create stem cells without destroying human embryos.

An e-mail sent to reporters by Nature before the paper's online publication stated that company researchers "have been able to generate new lines of cultured embryonic stem (ES) cells while leaving the embryo intact."

In reality, however, the embryos used by the company were destroyed in the course of developing the method. The researchers removed an average of five to six cells from each embryo rather than one to improve their chances of success. Removing that many cells at such an early stage of development effectively destroys an embryo.

Within hours of the paper's release, the journal issued a pair of clarifications to the original e-mail that corrected the mistake. But several media outlets included the error in their own accounts.

7 posted on 10/27/2006 1:55:06 PM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
OCRT Statement of Belief:

We are a multi-faith group. As of 2006-JAN, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters: belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists and what form it takes, etc.

8 posted on 10/27/2006 1:59:42 PM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

ACTC stock was up today .....




Just for yucks


9 posted on 10/27/2006 1:59:48 PM PDT by Fighting Irish (Béagán agus a rá go maith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Removing that many cells at such an early stage of development effectively
destroys an embryo.


I'm suprised the company didn't hire Bill Clinton to help confuse the
press (and public) by asking what the definition of "effectively" "is".
10 posted on 10/27/2006 2:02:49 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
The Religious tolerance organization you site is definitely liberal in nature. They don't believe in any moral absolutes. They state they believe in the inherent worth of a human being but support abortion because we don't "know" when life begins.

They are left wing for sure. Also, they are from Toronto, Canada. 'Nuff said.

11 posted on 10/27/2006 2:05:20 PM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish

every thing you posted had already been accomplished by using adult stem cells without killing any children.


12 posted on 10/27/2006 2:11:51 PM PDT by Coleus (Abortion and Euthanasia, Don't Democrats just kill ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; Peach; airborne; Asphalt; Dr. Scarpetta; I'm ALL Right!; StAnDeliver; ovrtaxt; ...

bump & a ping


13 posted on 10/27/2006 3:02:59 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
An easy answer is that the proponents of ESC technology hope to inject embryonic stemcells into the brains of the handicapped and give them cancer.

There might be another answer, but that one works for me.

14 posted on 10/27/2006 4:39:30 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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.

15 posted on 10/27/2006 4:48:28 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Thank you very much for your posts at 7 and 8.

And in reply to your homepage question, yes, I did go to check up on you!

16 posted on 10/28/2006 5:55:21 AM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
every thing you posted had already been accomplished by using adult stem cells without killing any children.

But there is a v-a-s-t difference in cells that don't know what they are yet (Embryonic) and those that do (Adult).

Listen .... personally, I'm really on the fence with this issue, I admit. Being a christian and hardcore pro-life there are some things I find that cut across the grain of my core beliefs. Perhaps taking this side of the debate is theraputic and causing me to rethink the issue.

But if I had to choose right now - I'd say if there were a way to extract a single cell from an embryo without damaging the potential the remainder cells would develope into a human baby ..then I'm all in.

ACTC has made a claim, presented white papers and the world has responded by saying, "Prove it".

Well, I'm willing to give them the time and money to do just that. God knows we have spent money in the billions on totaly useless studies. This one, if it can be done would be one of the greatest finds in a century.

We conservatives have no problem sending our young men and women to war - watch them get blown into a million pieces and suck it up, siting drunken driver statistics as a comparison.

We have an opportunity here ... to ease pain and suffering. If I had to chose where my tax dollars go - Ted Kennedy's hookers and scotch or giving hope a child would see again, (pick your ailment) I wouldn't think twice about funding stem cell research.

Now if that line of thinking is criminal - then lock me and others like me up.

17 posted on 10/28/2006 6:56:03 AM PDT by Fighting Irish (Béagán agus a rá go maith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
OCRT Statement of Belief: We are a multi-faith group. As of 2006-JAN, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters: belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists and what form it takes, etc.

This is a whole new and different argument.

Are you implying only christians can find a moral foothold in the pro-life debate?

18 posted on 10/28/2006 7:04:07 AM PDT by Fighting Irish (Béagán agus a rá go maith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
As I said, escr has been around for 25 years and has already been determined to cure no ailments and no diseases. ES Cells cause cancer, abnormal growth and tumors. Adult stem cells have already been used to treat eye diseases without using children/embryos so why do Frankenstein like research on humans in the embryonic stage? It's evil and the end does not justify the means. That embryo is someone's child, brother, sister and deserves the respect of any person. The escr is about abortion and money plain and simple.

But there is a v-a-s-t difference in cells that don't know what they are yet (Embryonic) and those that do (Adult). >>>>

yes, there is a difference, and that's why bone and skin grew in the brains of Parkinson's patients. These cells are primordial and undifferentiated and are created to cause rapid growth inevitably to form a whole human being.
19 posted on 10/28/2006 10:08:49 AM PDT by Coleus (Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

I like your tagline ... btw


20 posted on 10/28/2006 11:20:07 AM PDT by Fighting Irish (Béagán agus a rá go maith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 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