There seem to be a few misconceptions on Stem Cell Research

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 04:06 PM

President Bush is not an enemy of stem cell research. Now, the average american might say "Well gee golly.. but I thought he banned it!". No. What Bush banned was the harvesting of embryonic stem cells, a small fraction of all the types of stem cells used, which are gathered from fetuses. He even allowed funding to continue for programs which already had embryonic stem cells harvested before the ban.

Not only are stem cells from embryos just a small fraction of all stem cells, they are considered the LEAST VALUABLE of all stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research, which is still going on today both in the US and abroad, has never once been used in a human trial, unlike several other lines of stem cells. In fact, it has never once been succesfully used in an animal trial - with every application resulting in fatal tumorous growth.

Embryonic stem cells are so unpopular, in fact, that even before the embryonic stem cell harvesting ban the small amount of researchers who worked with those stem cells found it EXTREMELY difficult to get financial backing due to the fact that embryonic stem cells showed absolutely zero promise in being valuable for the immediate and moderate future (20-30 years).

While all of this SHOULD be common knowledge, some of you will undoubtedly want links. Here are a few of the top results from Yahoo.

http://www.lifenews.com/bio1052.html

Hundreds of scientists who back embryonic stem cell research are meeting in California to discuss the current state of the controversial research are admitting they've not made much progress and losing millions in trying to perfect it.

"Many of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven't worked yet,'' Celgene President Alan Lewis said, according to an AP story.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19425

Stem cells are the body’s master cells that can develop into other cells and tissues. They are found not only in human embryos but in adult sources, such as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and placentas. The procurement of stem cells from an adult source does not harm the donor. Embryonic stem cell research, though, requires that the embryo be destroyed.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research claim that embryonic stem cells have the most potential for creating cures, although that is not evident in the priorities of the multi-billion dollar biotechnology industry, which has invested many times more in adult stem cell research. Also, embryonic stem cell research has experienced multiple failures. Adult stem cell research, meanwhile, has already produced more than 40 treatments.

What I find ironic is that the news of embryonic stem cell research failure is well known in the proffesional medical field (of which my family belongs) and in the universities atf biology oriented programs - there is a very noticable lack of discussion in the news. The vast majority of sites I found relating to the admitted failures of embryonic stem cell research came from religious oriented sites. At first I was skeptical, but I decided to use these sources after examining their sources and the proffesional journalism techniques they used when writing.

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 04:11 PM

Now, while the first half of this discussion focuses on the fact that Bush is not an opponent of stem cell research, just an opponent of the harvesting of stem cells using fetuses which have produced no valuable medical finds, it's time to point out that OTHER types of stem cell research HAVE produced valuable medical treatments. And, keep in mind, the current administration is funding these programs heavily, just as they have funded alternative energy research heavily - a far cry from the claims of the left, and a big improvement over the last administration.

Dr. Alan Mackay-Sim and his small team of researchers at Griffith University have just published the results of a four-year study of stem cells obtained from the inside of the nose. Their work shows once again that adult stem cells can be made to change into any cells in the body without the medical or ethical problems of embryo cells. Mackay-Sim said almost any kind of tissue in the body could be obtained from olfactory stem cells including heart cells, brain cells and nerve cells, without immune system rejection or formation of tumors.

The cells are being hailed not only for their flexibility but for the ease with which they can be harvested - a ten-minute procedure that is not dangerous and only mildly uncomfortable. They also seem to have the advantage, unlike bone marrow stem cells, of very readily reproducing in the lab. The team was able to culture millions of them and grow a wide variety of tissue samples very easily.

LISBON, July 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A team of researchers from Hospital de Egas, Lisbon, Portugal and Wayne State University Medical School in Michigan, USA, have shown that stem cells taken from the olfactory mucosa can be used successfully to treat spinal cord injuries, even years after the injury occurred.

A report published by the American Paraplegia Society says that seven patients, ranging in age from 18 to 32 years, who suffered severe spinal cord injuries as much as six and half years before, were treated with stem-like progenitor and ensheathing cells derived from the olfactory mucosa.

Science’s Stem Cell Scam By Michael Fumento Thursday, July 20, 2006 Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) receive tremendous media attention, with oft-repeated claims that they have the potential to cure virtually every disease known. Yet there are spoilsports, self included, who point out that they have yet to even make it into a human clinical trial. This is even as alternatives – adult stem cells (ASCs) from numerous places in the body as well as umbilical cord blood and placenta – are curing diseases here and now and have been doing so for decades. And that makes ESC advocates very, very angry. How many diseases ASCs can treat or cure is debatable, with one website claiming almost 80 for umbilical cord blood alone. Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council, using stricter standards of evidence, has constituted a list of 72 for all types of ASCs. But now three ESC advocates have directly challenged Prentice’s list. They’ve published a letter in Science magazine, released ahead of publication obviously to influence Pres. Bush’s promise to veto legislation that would open wide the federal funding spigot for ESC research. The letter claims ASC “treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions” on his list.

Hedweb Buddha · 07-22-2006, 04:18 PM

Embryonic stem cells were isolated in 1998. Adult cells back in the 1960s. So naturally embryonic cells are not as advanced yet. That is also most likely why they haven't been used in human trials, they are only 8 years old as a functioning technology.

Stem cells are not unpopular. Various state governments, private companies, european countries & asian countries are funding stem cell research. Asia will just research the subject and take over the lead.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...2/b3915052.htm

The crux of this argument seems to be 'Stem cells aren't perfect after 8 years of research so lets abandon it' which isn't a good idea. What if we'd abandoned antibiotic research after 8 years back in the 1940s?

I heard that in 1850, even though people had been trying to free blacks for decades that most were still slaves. We should've given up after 8 years.

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 04:21 PM

The problem is that the medical technoligies used to exploit adult stem cells in the over 40 succesfull treatments so far are roughly the same as the ones being used to manipulate embryonic stem cells.

The vast majority of the successes with adult stem cells have come within the last 8 years, in fact the majority of them have come from the last 2-3 years. Considering the time zone when medical technologies were significantly available to exploit stem cells, embryonic stem cells had roughly the same change to prove themselves as adult stem cells. They failed. They failed completely, throughoutly, and across the board - and even proponents of embryonic stem cell research don't see any hope for them being usable until 20 to 30 years in the future, by which time adult stem cell treatments will have elminated the need for embryonic stem cell research.

Also, pointing out the quanitity of nations funding embryonic stem cell research isn't a valid argument, as the US is a member of those nations. The question should be: "What is the percentage of funding given to embryonic stem cell research compared to adult stem cell research in those countries".

Regardless of which country you look at adult stem cells are a better investment across the board.

motivez · 07-22-2006, 04:26 PM

Isn't all science wasteful (in things like spending, and time) until it's proven to be useful? Doesn't all sicence fail time and time again until someone makes a breakthrough? I don't believe what you're saying is a valid criticism.

If we use that logic, the pharmaceutical companies might as well give up now, because new drugs cost them billions of dollars and sometimes decades before anything promising that can help regain that revenue is found by their scientists.

Also, Bush did ban federal funding for it except on lines that already exist. He could have allowed that bill (and the partner one that had specific provisions banning harvesting) and helped increase funding for what many believe is one of the most promising areas of science right now.

I think it's retarded to ban this stuff on a moral ground when they could use ones that are being discarded as it is. If he values human life so much, why not allow that "human life" that's already going to simply be thrown away in a garbage can to be used to potentially treat

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 04:33 PM

Motivez, I agree with part of what you're saying. but your operating under one of those misconceptions. When there are multiple scientific avenues to the same goal, and one of them succeeds or proves it is a better method, history has shown that the other avenues are abandoned.

Tell me, Motivez, do you see cars being developed with coal fired engines? No. When the internal combustion engine was created scientists realized it was a far more rewarding and compelling line of research.

Further examples of this can be seen in the development of electricity, aviation, medicine, sanitation, and many other fields.

Adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells are two avenues to the same goal. Adult stem cells have proven to be conducive to medical research and have yeilded valuable results where as embryonic stem cells have failed so often that investors are turning away from it almost entirely.

If investors feel there is no need to invest in embryonic stem cell research (investors, mind you, who know FAR more about the process and results than you or I) compared to adult stem cell research - that should be a pretty clear reading on the situation.

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I think it's retarded to ban this stuff on a moral ground

Scrum and Thorgrim can claim all they want that Bush didn't go to war based on Saddam's violation of UN resolutions, his repeated human rights violations, and his connections to terrorists - but the facts still stand.

Likewise you can claim that Bush banned embryonic stem cells soley on moral grounds - but the facts show otherwise. The decision was not a moral one, it was simply brought to the foreground because a moral group was opposed to it. Had the embryonic research been deemed useful at all, it would not have been banned.

The fact that no conclusion could be reached as to the usefullness of embryonic stem cell research at a california convention of embryonic stem cell scientist activists should be a pretty big clue.

motivez · 07-22-2006, 05:01 PM

Of course he did it based on moral grounds, which is why he had a press conference detailing his objection to it because it used "human life" to seek cures for others, and had all those little "snowflake" children out there that had been created from frozen and maintained.

You can delude yourself into thinking he took a stand on scientific ground if you want to, but I'll take the man at his word when it comes to his motivations for this issue.

Adult Stem cells have had more time spent on their research, it's not like most science is simply built overnight. It takes time, money, dedication, and brilliance to make technological and scientific advances. The only reason NOT to persue this avenue of science is because of some wishy washy moral grounds.

People can stick their heads in the sand and pretend this isn't going to yield anything beneficial to humanity all they want, and that's exactly what they're doing by trying to keep funding at a minimum so the potential can't be fully explored. You can never be 100% sure unless you put in the time required.

All that will happen is that it'll taken place overseas, and once again we'll lose out on good paying high tech jobs to foreign nations. Bravo social conservative movement!

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 05:06 PM

You talk a good talk, Motivez, but the fact remains that the government funding of embryonic stem cell research in the US still continues in over a dozen labs where they had large number of embryonic cells, and outside of the US where harvesting is still legal.

Even with those facts, which you seem to be unaware of, the private and corporate investment community is nearly completely ignoring embryonic stem cell research. You can claim they are "ignorant bible thumpers" or anything else you want, but the fact remains that they are FAR more educated on the subject than you or I and they have made their decision based on solid evidence.

Crying about how we're losing ground on embryonic stem cell research is about as ridiculous as me crying that we're not still developing coal fired engines, or (and this might be a more relevant comparison) that AC power infrastructure investment is far outpacing DC power infrastructure investment.

motivez · 07-22-2006, 05:23 PM

I said that exact thing in my initial post on the matter. He's banned funding for the research on all except the current lines, maybe you missed that? I'm not unaware of those facts, rather, you seem to be unaware of the contents of my posts

The fact remains that he could have approved this funding and the other bill that passed specifically banning harvesting while allowing for greater research of embryos that are already going to be discarded.. and he didn't do that.

I'm not saying they're uneducated or that I know more than them about the field, but there are many fields of science that were largely ignored until something showed enough promise to potentially be profitable. Science takes time and isn't always immediately going to yield results, which is why I support federal funding for such things.

I'm not crying about anything, I just see this as another notch on the social conservative movement's victory wall that's bad for America.

I'd much rather have high tech jobs in this field in the US, where American's can benefit than overseas. You wouldn't? I don't even care if it's 1 or 3 or 5 jobs, I'd still prefer them to be in the US than overseas because it benefits us.

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 05:26 PM

I'd rather the money go towards adult stem cells which have proven their value compared to embryonic stem cells which have not even proven, nay - not even HINTED, their potential.

Funding DC power infrastructure would make more jobs too, but it wouldn't help America.

Adult stem cells, alternative energy production (including nuclear which has been so maligned by the left it could not be considered an alternative), alternative energy storage (ala hydrogen fuel cell), and more are all being funded by Bush. The last administration's commitment to high tech research and development was a ghost pale comparison to the commitment made by the current one - and it is a commitment that has made the majority of researchers happy while pissing off a handful of vocal minorities with shit fields.

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I said that exact thing in my initial post on the matter. He's banned funding for the research on all except the current lines, maybe you missed that? I'm not unaware of those facts, rather, you seem to be unaware of the contents of my posts

Maybe it's not my misunderstanding, maybe it's your presentation. You claim that Bush is somehow hurting the US scientific community when he has increased stem cell funding and dramatically increased research and development in other high tech areas.

You also keep refusing to acknowledge the fact that Bush never stopped funding embryonic stem cell research, and that harvesting stem cells is still legal in other countries. The reason for the reduction of funding isn't because of Bush or the bible thumpers you love to point your finger at. It's because investors (who, as i've said, know FAR more than you or I) and the majority of the scientific community (including, even, activists of embryonic stem cell research) view it as junk science that will be outdated and useless by the time we figure out how to manipulate it.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-22-2006, 05:35 PM

Jesus fucking Christ, is this a joke? You posted two links, one of which is from a pro life news agency, and the other one is a Baptist news agency.

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by TekDragon

What I find ironic is that the news of embryonic stem cell research failure is well known in the proffesional medical field (of which my family belongs) and in the universities atf biology oriented programs - there is a very noticable lack of discussion in the news. The vast majority of sites I found relating to the admitted failures of embryonic stem cell research came from religious oriented sites. At first I was skeptical, but I decided to use these sources after examining their sources and the proffesional journalism techniques they used when writing.

You have 2 choices.

1. Examine the sources I provided and indicate how their reporting of events is not valid.

2. Find an example of embrynic stem cell research that has either:
a) reached the human stage
b) had a succesful animal stage

Failing that, your argument has no legs to stand on.

motivez · 07-22-2006, 05:38 PM

I've acknowledged it in pretty much every single one of my posts. I'm not sure how you continue missing the fact that I've plainly stated he's banned federal funding except on the lines that currently exist. "Except".. meaning the funding will continue on those lines that currently exist.

I also am well aware that the research and potential 'harvesting' issues will continue in other countries, and that's why, again, I have pointed out multiple times that he could have allowed for this increased funding while specifically having provisions that ban "harvesting".

Also, I really don't care about the "investors", like I pointed out in my previous post, sometimes science needs the support of people who are more interested in immediate profit margin.

I don't know why I need to keep repeating these points though.

TekDragon · 07-22-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I also am well aware that the research and potential 'harvesting' issues will continue in other countries, and that's why, again, I have pointed out multiple times that he could have allowed for this increased funding while specifically having provisions that ban "harvesting".

That's exactly what he did

He allowed for the funding (and in fact increased funding) of embryonic stem cell research on existing lines while having provisions that banned harvesting.

Also, I really don't care about the "investors", like I pointed out in my previous post, sometimes science needs the support of people who are more interested in immediate profit margin.

It would be an extreme fallacy to claim that all investors are seeking short term profits, and that is why they ignore embryonic stem cell research. You know it and so do I. This is capitalism, and there will be strong investing WHEREVER there is a chance of making money either tomorrow or farther in the future.

The fact is that it isn't a long term investment, it's a BAD investment. Qualified as such by not only the investors, but by the activists themselves.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-22-2006, 05:46 PM

Even assuming embrionic stem cells have not proven useful in previous research, I really don't care. IMO, even the slightest chance of scientific progress should not be stopped because of religion. I thought we as humans got over this type of stupid shit when we looked like asses for arresting Galileo for saying the Earth revolved around the sun.

motivez · 07-22-2006, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by TekDragon

That's exactly what he did

He allowed for the funding (and in fact increased funding) of embryonic stem cell research on existing lines while having provisions that banned harvesting.

No, there's a middle ground between what he did and what will probably take place in other nations when it comes to harvesting.

This would have allowed for funding on new lines that were already going to be discarded. Perhaps we're using different versions of "harvesting".

I think there is room to use new lines of stem cells which are already going to simply be thrown away, without having things like people having abortions to sell them, or being able to use things that people have frozen for various fertilization procedures.