Posted on 06/14/2003 12:35:28 AM PDT by unspun
Daily Reproductive Health Report
The Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space yesterday heard "alternatives" to research using embryonic stem cells, including research using adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood, which some say could be as effective as embryonic stem cells in treating degenerative diseases, the AP/Yahoo! News reports (Abrams, AP/Yahoo! News, 6/12).
Dr. Jean Peduzzi-Nelson of the University of Alabama-Birmingham testified that there is "abundant evidence" that adult stem cells can already be used to treat patients, adding, "The conclusion from the pre-clinical studies is that adult stem cells work just as well if not better than embryonic stem cells and are probably safer."
Dr. David Hess, head of the neurology department at the Medical College of Georgia, said that adult stem cells extracted from a patient's bone marrow are easily isolated, are unlikely to be rejected by the patient's body, and "avoid the moral issues" involving treatments developed with embryonic stem cells, according to the AP/Times. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who called the hearing and opposes embryonic stem cell research because embryos are destroyed after stem cell extraction, praised the use of stem cells from umbilical cord blood for treating diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and said that he would push for federal funding for a national cord blood bank system.
Dr. Pablo Rubenstein, director of the National Cord Blood Program at the New York Blood Center, said that cord blood banks have provided stem cells for more than 3,500 transplants worldwide. He added that stem cells extracted from blood left in the umbilical cord and placenta after birth have resulted in "less immune reaction, greater availability in less time, and less risk of viral infection," according to the AP/Times. Supporters of embryonic stem cell research said that such cells have greater treatment potential because it is easier to coax them to develop into any type of cell that is needed, according to the AP/Times.
Dr. John McDonald of the Washington University School of Medicine's neurology department said that no area of research, including embryonic stem cells, should be limited, adding, "It's entirely too early to rule out any one of these areas of research in favor of any other" (AP/Washington Times, 6/13).
this story to a friend.
Print this story.
View full report.
Worth repeating. I've tried to say the same thing, though probably not as well. Granted there will most likely be some (hopefully minor) species differences, but most of the research should be possible with non-human species.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I just got to reading this particular thread. I am doing a debate research paper on stem cell research. One of the things I found in the 2001 is that umbilical and fetal stem cells are the same thing. The cord blood is chock full of fetal stem cells. Why aren't scientists just using the fetal cells in cord blood since most of the time the cords are just thrown out? Hmmmm. Makes me wonder if this isn't just another way to help push for abortion to remain legal.
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.