PDA

View Full Version : Credit where due



badbullgator
03-09-2009, 11:09 AM
The ONLY thing BHO has done that I agree with so far. Over turning the ban on funding embryonic stem cell research. http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emthup.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10421754#)


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stem_cells

Tatyana
03-09-2009, 12:39 PM
Same here.

Keith Farmer
03-09-2009, 12:56 PM
The ONLY thing BHO has done that I agree with so far. Over turning the ban on funding embryonic stem cell research. http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emthup.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10421754#)


Just curios as to Why (not trying to pick a fight...just seeking your input since you are "in the field")? (see below)

Israeli researchers are the first in the world to have documented that the injection of stem cells from aborted human fetuses can trigger tumors. (from this article) http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellitepagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1233304821674 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellitepagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1233304821674)


And...



by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor


Rochester, NY (LifeNews.com) -- Scientists working with embryonic stem cell research on animals reconfirmed what pro-life advocates have been saying for years about it. Researcher Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center said injecting embryonic stem cells into the brains of patients with Parkinson's disease would cause tumors.
Goldman's research team has been injecting the controversial cells into rats that have the disease and the cells turned into tumors afterwards.
The scientists explained their findings in an article in the latest issue of Nature Medicine.
They said the embryonic stem cell injections helped some of the rats but some of the cells started growing in a manner that would eventually lead to a tumor.
"The behavioral data validate the utility of the approach. But it also raises a cautionary flag and says we are not ready for prime time yet," Goldman told the Washington Post.
He conceded that considerably more research would need to be done to determine whether the tumor problems could ever be overcome.
Parkinson's is a disease where dopamine-releasing cells in the brain die out, which leads to muscle dysfunction and can eventually cause paralysis. The goal of stem cell research in Parkinson's is to replace the dead cells with stem cells that form into new dopamine cells.
Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells obtained by killing days-old unborn children that were grown in a special chemical used to coax them into becoming brain cells.
The team killed the rats before they could determine that the tumors that appeared to be growing actually finished appearing and they said that any embryonic stem cell treatments on humans, which has never been tried, would have to be closely monitored.
Some autopsies on the rats found tumors and that the embryonic stem cells began to grow uncontrollably rather than becoming the dopamine cells as intended.
Another team led by Ole Isacson, a Harvard Medical School professor of neuroscience and neurology, published similar results earlier this month in the online journal Stem Cells and found that the embryonic stem cells also produced tumors.
Adult stem cells have not had the same problems and have been used successfully to treat dozens of diseases and conditions. But scientists have said they don't think embryonic stem cell research will lead to a cure for Parkinson's.
University of Melbourne Emeritus Professor of Medicine Thomas Martin told Australian lawmakers recently that 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.

duckheads
03-09-2009, 02:17 PM
why does the federal government have to pay for this research. let the market decide whether it is of value. obviously the is research going on just not being paid for by the taxpayers!

badbullgator
03-09-2009, 03:26 PM
Just curios as to Why (not trying to pick a fight...just seeking your input since you are "in the field")? (see below)

Israeli researchers are the first in the world to have documented that the injection of stem cells from aborted human fetuses can trigger tumors. (from this article) http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellitepagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1233304821674 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellitepagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1233304821674)


And...



by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor


Rochester, NY (LifeNews.com) -- Scientists working with embryonic stem cell research on animals reconfirmed what pro-life advocates have been saying for years about it. Researcher Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center said injecting embryonic stem cells into the brains of patients with Parkinson's disease would cause tumors.
Goldman's research team has been injecting the controversial cells into rats that have the disease and the cells turned into tumors afterwards.
The scientists explained their findings in an article in the latest issue of Nature Medicine.
They said the embryonic stem cell injections helped some of the rats but some of the cells started growing in a manner that would eventually lead to a tumor.
"The behavioral data validate the utility of the approach. But it also raises a cautionary flag and says we are not ready for prime time yet," Goldman told the Washington Post.
He conceded that considerably more research would need to be done to determine whether the tumor problems could ever be overcome.
Parkinson's is a disease where dopamine-releasing cells in the brain die out, which leads to muscle dysfunction and can eventually cause paralysis. The goal of stem cell research in Parkinson's is to replace the dead cells with stem cells that form into new dopamine cells.
Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells obtained by killing days-old unborn children that were grown in a special chemical used to coax them into becoming brain cells.
The team killed the rats before they could determine that the tumors that appeared to be growing actually finished appearing and they said that any embryonic stem cell treatments on humans, which has never been tried, would have to be closely monitored.
Some autopsies on the rats found tumors and that the embryonic stem cells began to grow uncontrollably rather than becoming the dopamine cells as intended.
Another team led by Ole Isacson, a Harvard Medical School professor of neuroscience and neurology, published similar results earlier this month in the online journal Stem Cells and found that the embryonic stem cells also produced tumors.
Adult stem cells have not had the same problems and have been used successfully to treat dozens of diseases and conditions. But scientists have said they don't think embryonic stem cell research will lead to a cure for Parkinson's.
University of Melbourne Emeritus Professor of Medicine Thomas Martin told Australian lawmakers recently that 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.


Keith. Way too much to go into here but aborted fetuses and 5 day old embryos are not the same thing. Direct injection of stem cells is only one of the may approaches, and perhaps the silliest for lack of a better term, being researched. While I am unfamiliar with the Rochester group I am familiar with the Harvard group and again this is only one aspect of stem cell research and far from all that can and will be done with them.
One thing to keep in mind, while in a perfect world maybe all of the left over embryos would be donated to families that cannot have their own children, many people do not wish to donate their “children” and the excess embryos are then washed down the drain. I know, from knowing you and from the way you phrase the question, that you are very much pro life and I understand that prospective but many people, myself included, feel that this is a good use for these excess embryos.
FWIW- our facility does not destroy frozen embryos. We only allow our patients to either use them themselves, donate them to others, donate them to our lab to use in research or training, or donate them to stem cell research. We feel that this gives the embryos the utmost respect and assures that none go to waste if you will. I guess a lot depends on your perspective on where life begins, so feel conception other at birth. I fall somewhere in between, when there is a heart beat you have a formed “fetus” and for me that is the beginning. Prior to that it is just cells no different from sperm, blood, skin, eggs or what have you. Cells die all the time and while you could call any of them alive to me it is not life itself until there is a heart. Maybe I am jaded but I just don’t see life in my culture dishes any more than I did when I was growing plates of bacteria.

badbullgator
03-09-2009, 03:47 PM
why does the federal government have to pay for this research. let the market decide whether it is of value. obviously the is research going on just not being paid for by the taxpayers!


Spoken like someone who does not have a clue. NIH is the largest funder of ALL medical research. Allowing the market to decide is fine, but I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that you are one who bitches about the cost of prescription medications, yet that is one of the areas of research that is in fact driven by private funding. If the private sector funds it, you can bet the cost is going to be very high to the end consumer. What I am saying is that if they figure out how to grow arms and legs using stem cells and it is through private money well,....it will cost you an arm and a leg to get that arm and leg;-)

Cody Covey
03-09-2009, 03:48 PM
the thing i dont understand is that there are other cells in adults that can easily be taken from skin that don't require a baby being killed. Why not use those instead of having a seemingly needless debate.

badbullgator
03-09-2009, 04:06 PM
the thing i dont understand is that there are other cells in adults that can easily be taken from skin that don't require a baby being killed. Why not use those instead of having a seemingly needless debate.


Excuse me what babies are being killed??? These are 5 day old embryos that have never seen the inside of a woman. 64 or so cells does not a baby make:rolleyes:

duckheads
03-09-2009, 05:29 PM
Spoken like someone who does not have a clue. NIH is the largest funder of ALL medical research. Allowing the market to decide is fine, but I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that you are one who bitches about the cost of prescription medications, yet that is one of the areas of research that is in fact driven by private funding. If the private sector funds it, you can bet the cost is going to be very high to the end consumer. What I am saying is that if they figure out how to grow arms and legs using stem cells and it is through private money well,....it will cost you an arm and a leg to get that arm and leg;-)

if you make that bet you would lose your money. why don't you just support your views instead of attacking someone who is questioning you? you don't know me from adam and you are going act like you know something about me. there is a lot of federal money going to research that is bogus. you complain about all of the other money he is spending but if it supports your livelyhood then you are all for it. you sound like the hypocrites you are constantly bashing on this forum. so if the government was doing all of the research for the trails for new drugs we would have what, free prescriptions? are you for socializing all of the medical field or just the one you work in?

Marvin S
03-09-2009, 05:52 PM
The ONLY thing BHO has done that I agree with so far. Over turning the ban on funding embryonic stem cell research. http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emthup.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10421754#)

I personally consider that one legacy of the past administration that was not commendable.

We should leave science to the scientists & politics to the people & we would all be the better for same.

As for Corey's view being hypocritical, I don't agree, he has done an excellent job of presenting his views on this subject whenever posted. & has the background to support his presentations. Which is not something that many who disagree with him can lay claim to.

Of course, that may be why the Right to Lifer's lose every time they go to court. & why the extremists in that movement lose every time they hit the ballot box. When a radical abortion law gets overturned at the ballot box in a state like SD, they need to recognize they overstepped.

Keith Farmer
03-09-2009, 06:35 PM
Corey,

Thanks for your input and honest answer.

My question is not primarily about which embryo stage is used, if they were created in a dish, if they were aborted, etc.

My questions would be better phrased like this:

Why is there such a push for embryonic stem cell research when the evidence thus far seems to point to an "iffy" future as noted by many leading researchers in the field?

Further, why is there not more of a push for adult stem cell research specifically when that area of research is producing wonderful outcomes?

badbullgator
03-09-2009, 06:45 PM
if you make that bet you would lose your money. why don't you just support your views instead of attacking someone who is questioning you? you don't know me from adam and you are going act like you know something about me. there is a lot of federal money going to research that is bogus. you complain about all of the other money he is spending but if it supports your livelyhood then you are all for it. you sound like the hypocrites you are constantly bashing on this forum. so if the government was doing all of the research for the trails for new drugs we would have what, free prescriptions? are you for socializing all of the medical field or just the one you work in?


Right.....my field is far form socialized and I would hope it remains that way. What fool in the business would want socailzed medicine, there is not much money in it as it is and there would be a lot lees if it was soooooo...you still don't know what your talking about;-)

BTW- No government money supports my livelyhood thank you very much..When I was in research full time the government did not support my research except when I worked for a state agency that was funded, but I was never directly funded in any way

badbullgator
03-09-2009, 07:17 PM
Corey,

Thanks for your input and honest answer.

My question is not primarily about which embryo stage is used, if they were created in a dish, if they were aborted, etc.

My questions would be better phrased like this:

Why is there such a push for embryonic stem cell research when the evidence thus far seems to point to an "iffy" future as noted by many leading researchers in the field?

Further, why is there not more of a push for adult stem cell research specifically when that area of research is producing wonderful outcomes?

Keith
It is not that simple. There are not really readily available “adult” stem cells. For this discussion we would have to go into the whole what are stem cells and where do they come from. I don’t have time for that right now, but I will be happy to discuss it with you the next time I see you. It is actually very fascinating. Even having a source for stem cells does not mean you will have a “line” of cells that will continue to grow in the laboratory it is a difficult process to create a line of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are but a small part of stem cell research and many other sources are being explored, however, because embryonic stem cells are totally undifferentiated in any way they are an excellent source. They come from embryos created in an IVF lab for the purpose of getting the couple from who the gametes came from pregnant. Sometimes there are excess embryos left after the couples have achieved their desired families.
Example;
A couple come in for IVF and we retrieve 12 ooctyes, Out of these 8-10 may be healthy and available for insemination. We inseminate 10 and out of that 10, 8 fertilized normally. Now those 8 are left to grow in culture for 5 days. Out of the 8 lets say 7 grow to nice embryos and the other arrest and is discarded. We transfer 2 into the woman and she gets pregnant (hopefully) or not. We are now left with 5 embryos that we freeze for the patient to use in the future, either after she has had the child(ren) she is pregnant with from the transfer or in a month or two after it is determined she did not get pregnant. Either way they come back for more children and we have 5 embryos in the liquid nitrogen. I thaw 3 and of that 2 survive and are transferred into the woman. She becomes pregnant for the second time and delivers. She now has two children (maybe more if she had twins one of the two times) and they decide that is all the children they want. They are now left with 2 embryos frozen. They now are left with a choice of what to do with them. As I said before we do not allow them to simply destroy them so they can give them to our lab for use in training, they can donate them to a needy couple (this is our biggest push and we are a leader by far in embryo donation), or they can donate them to stem cell research. Again there are numerous reason why a lot of folks just do not want to donate their embryos to others to have children with.

As far as the “iffy” research, again that is but a small part of the research. I caution you to be careful of what you read and who is publishing it. Of course some things will never pan out, but that is part of research, try and fail, try again and maybe fail or maybe succeed. The article you posted is only a tiny bit of information and it is about something that may or may not work and probably will not work. However, the same Harvard researcher mentioned in the article is working on growing cells that control diabetes. It has nothing to do with injecting stem cells into anyone, it is about actually making these cells, specifically embryonic stem cells, differentiate into specific cells that do a specific function, in this case prevent diabetes. Similarly the same thing is being done in regard to creating liver cells, skin cells, brain cells, neurons…. The possibilities are infinite. Think about being able to grow skin in a lab that could be placed on a little girl who was badly burned. This skin would not be rejected because they body would not recognize it as foreign. The same could be true with liver cells or any other organ. Need a kidney transplant? Not a problem we will be able to grow a new one that your body will accept and rejection will not be an issue. Spinal cord injury….neurons are the slowest growing cell in your body. Sure would be nice to be able to grow them and transfer them, again without fear of rejection. All research is “iffy”. I would bet that you have washed out a few dogs that you may have once had hoped were gong to be good prospects. Same is true of research, you have to try and if you try enough you will fail, but if you try enough you will also succeed.

Matt McKenzie
03-09-2009, 08:59 PM
Thanks, Corey. I have a little bit better understanding of the issue.

Losthwy
03-09-2009, 09:01 PM
I to welcome stem research. There are so many possibilities for cures and treatments for spinal cord damage, diabetes, osteoarthritis (my personal favorite, to be able to grow cartilage), alzheimer's the list goes on and on.

Patrick Johndrow
03-09-2009, 10:41 PM
Excuse me what babies are being killed??? These are 5 day old embryos that have never seen the inside of a woman. 64 or so cells does not a baby make:rolleyes:

Hell I guess it could turn into a cat or a puppy...You being an expert...what would those 64 or cells turn into?

Cheap drugs, Hope and Change Regards

Keith Farmer
03-10-2009, 08:58 AM
Corey,

Once again thanks for your input. We seem to keep coming back to the ethical/moral questions rather than sound scientific data so I will throw out my two cents worth in that area.

#1) Obama's lift on the research ban does not restrict creating stem cell lines in labratories that do not receive federal funding (in other words, privately funded labs can do whatever they want). The idea that only left over embryos from family planning will be used, in my opinion, is a smoke and mirrors trick (much like an out of order double in a derby) to quell any opposition of the research...dangerous road to travel down...even with one step!

#2) Obama's statement that we in this country will no longer have to be faced with a decision between moral values and sound science is perhaps the most dangerous statement ever uttered by an elected official. He has basically said to me that my moral values are of no issue in the face of science that as of yet does nothing of what he or others report. In fact, the data suggests the possibilities are again "iffy". Here again is the position of knowledgeable researchers on this issue:

But scientists have said they don't think embryonic stem cell research will lead to a cure for Parkinson's.

University of Melbourne Emeritus Professor of Medicine Thomas Martin told Australian lawmakers recently that he did not think that embryonic stem cell research would even lead to cures for major diseases such as diabetes or Parkinson's.

This does not stipulate what methodology the researchers are applying. It rather states that embryonic stem cell usage as a whole does not hold the future value being touted by the leadership of our country.

#3) Obama's horrendous record of being the only elected official to stand on a senate floor in opposition to the babies born alive protection act should be a gigantic red flag to anyone who looks at this latest effort as extremely dangerous...here is why:

"Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001" By Jill Stanek
(in part):

"Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …"

It appears that Obama's definition of a child is much different than mine or even yours Corey...much different. In the case above the "child" at topic was delivered to term, was alive, was allowed to die without medical attention, and Obama defended that act as what?...good science? Morally sound? You tell me.

#4) (and this is really nifty)- Obama's definition of "cloning" is not what most American's understand cloning to be. The eugenicist in Obama cannot help but rear its head...and often. The clinical definition of cloning, and correct me if I am wrong here, is that it is not cloning unless there is implantation...right/wrong? IOW's, There is no cloning if the cells are duplicated and not implanted. However, we, America, can export those cells to countries with no ban on implantation for creation of embryos for further usage...ie being destroyed for other purposes.

Here is an old quote from someone who dabbled with similar issues:

"The most dangerous thing is for us to cut off the natural process of selection and thereby rob ourselves of the possibility of acquiring able people. The first born are not always the most talented or strongest people… As a result of our modern humanitarianism we are trying to maintain the weak at the expense of the healthy.”

I suppose one could say that the holocaust was valuable since good scientific data came from some of the research?...nah, that is just not the case.

I will try and hold my moral ground. I hope you can too Corey. Don't loose sight of your values for the wave of this tide.

Steve
03-10-2009, 11:53 AM
Allowing the market to decide is fine, but I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that you are one who bitches about the cost of prescription medications, yet that is one of the areas of research that is in fact driven by private funding. If the private sector funds it, you can bet the cost is going to be very high to the end consumer.

The cost of drugs is driven by the FDA, specifically all the hoops that companies have to jump through to bring a drug to market. It's miles away from the free market.

BrianW
03-10-2009, 01:49 PM
Jmtc, but the only "federal funding" should be a tax deduction & capital gains exemption for those who would choose to invest in that type of research. You believe in it, you get to put your money where your mouth is and you either benefit/lose according to what that company does with the money. People could then decide the morals/ethics for themselves .

This would also eliminate all the wasted time & effort of govt mandated accounting & reporting, as well as any need for a stem cell 'czar' that would surely be appointed for oversight of federal monies spent.

badbullgator
03-10-2009, 07:16 PM
Keith
I have the feeling that your issues with embryonic stem cells are founded in religion and by extension your moral beliefs. I respect your point of view and those of anyone. While I do not agree with BHO’s every word on the topic and I don’t agree with many of his parties view on many issues, I do feel strongly that this is not in any way a religious, moral, right to life, or any other such issue. That is just me and it is an opinion I have formed form the work I do. Other feel strongly that even IVF, you know retrieving eggs, making embryos, transferring them, is wrong from a religious or moral stand point. All I can say to those folks is thank God that they cannot outlaw IVF over fears similar to yours about embryonic stem cells or there would be many unhappy couples out there who could not know the joy of having their own children.
I kind of feel for me to continue on with the thread would be a losing battle because your convictions are deep rooted and it is not my goal or even desire to change you beliefs in this regard. I would never try or even care to try to change someone’s religious or moral beliefs and we will just have to somewhat agree to disagree on some things. We could play tit for tat and I can post all the research that is going positively and you can post more things that someone thinks will not work. I tried to make it clear that of course not all research works and that is why you keep trying using similar but different approaches. Some of the greatest discoveries have come from previously failed research.
I would really like to go into the feeling that you have that stem cells will be used from aborted fetuses, but I am afraid that nothing I could say would convince you or some of the others differently. You are right about smoke and mirrors in this regard, however, I see them on your side of the argument as a means to influence people away for the use of embryonic stem cells over unfounded fears that somewhere, some evil scientist is wringing his hands in anticipation of the next delivery form the abortion clinic. All I will say is that it is not a possibility – trust me.
Don’t worry about my moral values Keith. I think you know me well enough to know who I am and what I am about. I share many of the same beliefs as you and understand you concerns, but I assure you they are unfounded

Keith Farmer
03-10-2009, 07:57 PM
That is cool Corey.

I still do not have an answer, though, as to why the use of embryonic stem cells seem to be such a huge interest as opposed to adult stem cells. What I want to understand from someone who knows is what advantageous benefit is there by using embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells?

If you have any published data touting the positive outcome of embryonic stem cell usage (not just hype about what could be) please share that...I would appreciate the info...seriously.

This is from a dad of three wonderful children via IVF...I thank God everyday for them and for the opportunity that we have for more. I do not trust Obama, however, one bit. You...I'm not so worried about.

KF

Keith Farmer
03-11-2009, 03:31 PM
I think this is close to what I am asking about:

1) It appears that Harvard Stem Cell Institute (as do a few others world wide) derive/or wish to derive most of their embryonic stem cell lines from a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) IE cloning...from their (Harvard's) web site:



"The first human ES cells were derived from surplus embryos generated during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. More recently, however, the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer into unfertilized eggs offers the possibility of creating human ES cells whose genetic makeup matches that of the donor."


Also,



"Our overall aim is to bring stem cells to the clinic as quickly as possible..."


From Wikipedia:

"...Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a laboratory technique for creating a clonal embryo...."

"...After many mitotic divisions in culture, this single cell forms a blastocyst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst) (an early stage embryo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo) with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism...."

Here is a link to the entire Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer

This certainly does not sound like left over IVF embryos to me...in fact, that is dispelled in the quote above.

Further, it appears that embryonic stem cells have a distinct advantage (at least a perceived advantage) over adult stem cells in that adult stem cells are limited as to what they can "morph" into where as embryonic stem cells can basically "morph" into any kind of cell...right/wrong? This explains the push for the research as I wanted to know.

This whole thing smells fishy. Cloning embryos (does not count as a clone until implantation remember), distributing them world wide...(see below from this web site):http: //www.mcb.harvard.edu/melton/hues/ :

"...As with all of our published reagents, it is our intention to make these cell lines as freely available to the research community as possible. In this instance, the HUES cells may be subject to patent and federal or state legislative restrictions that are beyond our control. Harvard University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) have worked hard to establish a simple procedure that will enable us to provide the cells to the research community with as few encumbrances as possible..."

Where does it end? Remember, one characteristic of a narcicist is that the methodolgies used by one are justifiable as long as the end goal of their desire is met. I am really concerned about someone who says that moral values do not matter as long as science is advanced (Obama).

By the way, all the talk about blastocysts, embryos, etc. are terms derived from the eugenically based evolutionary chart are they not? In mimic form of so-called human race evolution an individual person also "evolves" through various stages. That is why scientists can determine what stage "life" begins according to a flow chart of evolutionary divisions. Here is how it goes (correct me if I am wrong):

stage 1)-Sperm and egg become a zygote
stage 2)-Zygote becomes a blastocyst
stage-3)-Blastocyst becomes an embryo
stage-4)-Embryo becomes a fetus
stage-5)- Fetus becomes an infant
stage-6)-Infant becomes a child
stage-7)-Child becomes an adult
stage-8)-Adult becomes a geriatric (old person)
stage-9)-Geriatric becomes a corpse

The question becomes what determines a "person's" value? Is it completing a certain stage? Is it size, weight, complexity? Is it one's value to society? Is it the inheritance of rights (as Obama discussed in his senate floor speech against BAIPA)?

If the earliest stages are defined as not being a human then why? What about the later stage...is that the next step in devaluaing people? It was in germany:

Viktor Brack:

“In many hospitals and nursing homes of the Reich there are countless people with incurable diseases of every kind, people who are of no use at all to the rest of humanity, who are only a burden on society, incurring endless costs for their maintenance, and there is absolutely no prospect of these people ever recovering and becoming useful members of society again. They sit and vegetate like animals, they are social misfits undeserving of life – and yet physically they are perfectly healthy human beings who may well live on for many more years. They eat the food that could be given to others, and in many cases they need twice or three times as much nursing care. The rest of society needs to be protected against these people. Given that we need to make provision now for keeping healthy people alive, it is all the more necessary to get rid of these creatures first, even if only to take better care for now of the curable patients in our hospitals and nursing homes. The space thus freed up is needed for all kinds of things essential to the war effort: military hospitals, civilian hospitals and auxiliary hospitals.”

I am done now.

badbullgator
03-11-2009, 07:10 PM
I think this is close to what I am asking about:

1) It appears that Harvard Stem Cell Institute (as do a few others world wide) derive/or wish to derive most of their embryonic stem cell lines from a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) IE cloning...from their (Harvard's) web site:

Kieth This is done in an effort to create a line that they can use that will require no embryonic stem cells once that line is established.



Also,



From Wikipedia:

"...Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a laboratory technique for creating a clonal embryo...."

"...After many mitotic divisions in culture, this single cell forms a blastocyst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst) (an early stage embryo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo) with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism...."

Wikipedia:rolleyes: Sort of yes but not exactly

Here is a link to the entire Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer

This certainly does not sound like left over IVF embryos to me...in fact, that is dispelled in the quote above.

Actually yes they are and that is the point. They are using the limited left over embryos they are able to get and then using the genetic material to "clone" more. It is not easy to obtain them. I have only sent them less than 10 total in the past three years and that took months of paperwork and hoop jumping to get it done.

Further, it appears that embryonic stem cells have a distinct advantage (at least a perceived advantage) over adult stem cells in that adult stem cells are limited as to what they can "morph" into where as embryonic stem cells can basically "morph" into any kind of cell...right/wrong? This explains the push for the research as I wanted to know.

Yes in short that is the answer. "Adult" stem cells seem to be somewhat programed as to what they may become whereas embryonic stem cells are not and have the potential to become anything.

This whole thing smells fishy. Cloning embryos (does not count as a clone until implantation remember), distributing them world wide...(see below from this web site):http: //www.mcb.harvard.edu/melton/hues/ :

"...As with all of our published reagents, it is our intention to make these cell lines as freely available to the research community as possible. In this instance, the HUES cells may be subject to patent and federal or state legislative restrictions that are beyond our control. Harvard University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) have worked hard to establish a simple procedure that will enable us to provide the cells to the research community with as few encumbrances as possible..."

Where does it end? Remember, one characteristic of a narcicist is that the methodolgies used by one are justifiable as long as the end goal of their desire is met. I am really concerned about someone who says that moral values do not matter as long as science is advanced (Obama).

you are missing the point of this. They are creating cell lines that will keep going and by doing so they will not need as many/any cells from embryos.
One thing to keep in mind is that the field of science is one that still maintains a very high level of integrity. Honesty and sharing with your peers both for the sake of research as well as a review of your methods, techniques, and results is a big part of “doing business”. Once these lines are created they can/will be shared with other researchers to further their work and again reduce the number of embryos needed to continue such research. Keep in mind that these cell lines are very protected by the facilities that created them and it is not like you can pick up the phone and call Harvard and order a couple of dozen, it is just not an easy thing to do even for those who are truly in the field. It is most unfortunate that much of what people hear and believe is far from the truth. You know well that IVF is a good thing and that in MOST hands it is done responsibly, however, we all know about octomom, so of course just like any profession there are bad apples and most of those are outcast from their peers (the fool doctor responsible for octomom is an outcast in our professional society and has been for a long time). Will “bad” things ever happen with ESC’s, who knows but in my professional opinion it will not.

By the way, all the talk about blastocysts, embryos, etc. are terms derived from the eugenically based evolutionary chart are they not? In mimic form of so-called human race evolution an individual person also "evolves" through various stages. That is why scientists can determine what stage "life" begins according to a flow chart of evolutionary divisions. Here is how it goes (correct me if I am wrong):

I will have to say you are wrong. I am not sure, however, I am sure the terms zygote, morula (you forgot one if you want to follow this chart) and blastocyst go way back, I will have to pull out my old developmental bio book at the office tomorrow. This chart is also wrong in that a zygote (two pronuclear bodies) and a blastocyst ARE EMBRYOS so while a zygote becomes a morula and then a blastocyst, all are already embryos so truely sperm and egg become embryo.... Note some people do use the term "pre embryo" but it is not a standard thing

stage 1)-Sperm and egg become a zygote
stage 2)-Zygote becomes a blastocyst
stage-3)-Blastocyst becomes an embryo
stage-4)-Embryo becomes a fetus
stage-5)- Fetus becomes an infant
stage-6)-Infant becomes a child
stage-7)-Child becomes an adult
stage-8)-Adult becomes a geriatric (old person)
stage-9)-Geriatric becomes a corpse

The question becomes what determines a "person's" value? Is it completing a certain stage? Is it size, weight, complexity? Is it one's value to society? Is it the inheritance of rights (as Obama discussed in his senate floor speech against BAIPA)?

If the earliest stages are defined as not being a human then why? What about the later stage...is that the next step in devaluaing people? It was in germany:

Viktor Brack:

“In many hospitals and nursing homes of the Reich there are countless people with incurable diseases of every kind, people who are of no use at all to the rest of humanity, who are only a burden on society, incurring endless costs for their maintenance, and there is absolutely no prospect of these people ever recovering and becoming useful members of society again. They sit and vegetate like animals, they are social misfits undeserving of life – and yet physically they are perfectly healthy human beings who may well live on for many more years. They eat the food that could be given to others, and in many cases they need twice or three times as much nursing care. The rest of society needs to be protected against these people. Given that we need to make provision now for keeping healthy people alive, it is all the more necessary to get rid of these creatures first, even if only to take better care for now of the curable patients in our hospitals and nursing homes. The space thus freed up is needed for all kinds of things essential to the war effort: military hospitals, civilian hospitals and auxiliary hospitals.”

I am done now.

The bottom stuff.....I don;t know I have been too busy tearing up the permit and other fish for the past few days. Maybe I will get back into it tomorrow at work, but then again I think tomorrow at work will be spent wishing I was on the permits....

BTW- for those who do not know. I am not a stem cell researcher. I am an embryologist(cell biologist) and do send embryos to a couple of programs. I may not be an "expert" but I am very "in the loop" and this is a constant journal and conference topic.

badbullgator
03-12-2009, 12:26 PM
Keith
No fishing today so let’s see if I can go into this a bit more. A few things that are showing great promise include clinical trails that are about to begin in spinal cord repair that may treat paraplegia (note clinical trial only occur when great success has been realized in the lab and the research has undergone GREAT scrutiny form many places including the FDA. As mentioned before pancreatic beta cells islet cells HAVE been produced and will go a long way in the treatment and prevention (maybe “cure”) of diabetes. Treatment of myocardial infarction, retinal repair, and drug development are others that are showing not only the promise of working, but very good evidence that they do.
Right now there are 22 lines of embryonic stem cells that ARE used and funded already, so we are not really talking about lifting a total ban on the funding of embryonic stem cell research anyway. What we are talking about it limiting the variety of cells that can be funded. It is kind of like saying “you can only be paid for training goldens, you can train a better dog, a lab, but no funding for you for that” (no offence golden folks). Lifting the funding ban on new lines of cells is not as big a deal as it is made out to be by some in regards to the overall picture of stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells (ESC) are far more “plastic” than adult or fetal stem cells. ESC’s are truly pluripotent (can develop into anything) and the others, adult, fetal, and the various others are all truly adult stem cells and are multipotent, meaning they can develop into different things, but they are somewhat preprogrammed and what they can become is limited. Now recently some researchers have caused specialized adult skin cells to differentiate by exposing them to specific transcription factors and formed pluripotent stem cells, however it is difficult and not completely ready to be used on a scale large enough to be of much use.
Spinal cord injuries and the repair of neurons is just about to begin (relative term “about” the FDA moves very slowly) phase 1 clinical trials. This has worked very well in animal models and is truly something that is going to benefit people in short order.
Other researchers have produced various heart cells from ESC’s that have been beneficial in myocardial infarction in rats. The results/benefits have been small and transient, but it is a start and improvement is on the horizon (of course you might say this is a failure because it has only shown a little benefit and not what was hoped for, however, the research is ongoing and should improve, remember if at first you don’t succeed…).
Retinal cells have been produced from ESC that have allowed blind rats to see light. They have not yet been able to restore sight, as in structures, yet but from this they have gone on to develop another type of retinal cells that may well restore structure sight (again, if at first).
Cancer drugs. Scientist have been able (I say able, but it is speculation because it is not published yet and closely guarded) to develop cancer cells. Now you might ask why would they want to develop cancer cells. We it is much easier and particle to test new cancer drugs and therapies on cells rather than animals or humans. These drug researchers are only looking at the cellular mechanism by which these drugs act. Finding a drug that works on cells that are not normally treated by current methods (quiescent cells which are believed to cause cancer recurrence and metastases) is the hard part, finding a delivery method for these drugs is far easier. This type of research is not limited to cancer treatments and spans a wide range of pharmaceutical therapies.
Genetic disorders, again cells can be created that have specific genetic disorders, Huntington’s disease is one that I am aware of that is being researched using ESC (I will see what I can find for reference on that one) Others include heart disease and some leukemia’s.
Other things being researched include sterility, infertility and regenerative science.

References

Vugler A, Carr AJ, Lawrence J, et. al. Elucidating the Phenomenon of HESC-derived RPE: Anatomy of Cell Genesis, Expansion and Retinal Transplantation. Exp Neurol, 2008;214:347-361

Lund RD, Wang S, Klimanskaya E, et, al. Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Cells Rescue Visual Function in Dystropic Rats. Cloning Stem Cells, 2006,8:189-199

Stevens KR, Pabon L, Muskheli V, et, al. Scaffold Free Human Cardiac Tissue Patch Created from Embryonic Stem Cells. Tissue Eng. 2008;15

Van Laake LW, Passier R, Monshouwer-Kloots J, et, al. Human Embryonic Stem Cell Derived Cardomycotes Survive and Mature in the Mouse Heart and Transiently Improve Function After Myocardial Infarction. Stem Cell Res. 2007;1:9-24

Kehat I, Kenyagin-Karsenti D, Snir M, et, al. Human Embryonic Stem Cells can Differentiate into Myocytes with Structural and Functional Properties of Cardiomyocytes. J Clin Invest. 2001;108:407-414

Kroon E, Martinson LA, Kadoya K, et, al. Pancreatic Endoderm Derived form Human Embryonic Stem Cells Generates Glucose-Responsive Insulin-Secreting Cells in vivo. Nat. Biltechnol. 2008;26:443-452

Keirstead HS, Nistor G, Bernal G, et, al. Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Oligodendrocyte Progenitor Cell Transplants Remyelinate and Restore Locomotion After Spinal Cord Injury. J. Neurosci. 2005;25:4694-4705

Guan K, Rohwedel J, Wobus AM. Embryonic Stem Cell Differentiation Models; Cardiogenesis, myogenesis, Neurogenesis, Epithelial and Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell Differentiation in vitro. Cytotechnology. 1999;30:211-226

Zhou Q, Brown J, Kanarek A, et, al. In vivo Reprogramming of Adult Pancreatic Exocrine Cells to Beta-Cells. Nature. 2008;455:627-632

Study of the Safety and Preliminary Effectiveness of Human Central Nervous System (CNS) Stem Cells (HuCNS-SC) in Patients With Infantile of Late Infantile Neuronal Ceriod Lipofuscinosis (NCL)
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00337636 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00337636)


That should be enough to bore you for a while. If you want or need more let me know. I have others but that is all I feel like typing right now.
Next we could address your fears in regard to cloning if you like. It is not what I think you think it is. ;-)

BTW- probably fishing tomorrow and then I start making babies on Saturday and will be busy for the next week or so, but I will try to keep up

Scott Greenwood
03-12-2009, 01:02 PM
I for one am also glad for the decision on stem cell research. I come from a family of strong christian baptist and believe most viewpoints from the left are just that "from the left." I also am a thirty year survivor of diabetes and could care less where they get the needed information from but don't close the doors on something that might benefit the cause. When you have "winked at the devil" enough times you will start to realize that there are more important things out in this world than your personal beliefs. This is a tough subject for me and my family but I am young and don't want to waste the rest of my life wondering.

I don't enjoy people bad mouthing the subject when they have never sat in that persons shoes.

Keith Farmer
03-13-2009, 04:36 AM
That should be enough to bore you for a while. If you want or need more let me know. I have others but that is all I feel like typing right now.
Next we could address your fears in regard to cloning if you like. It is not what I think you think it is. :wink:



Thanks Corey,

That is the info I was searching for in my first post. It is never boring learning new things...that is the foundation for growth. Sometimes we agree with the data, sometimes we don't. All-in-all, imo, it is progress none the less if we learn something. When going through IVF (and I was surgically involved...ouch still) I got into the nuts and bolts (no pun there but it does work huh?) with the doc...very fascinating data to say the least.

I do not have fears about the cloning stuff...just reservations about the person who is out front...Obama. I do have concerns for what his motivations are with anything he does.

Go play with your cells...I am headed to a field trial.

KF