Stem cell research benefits every single person on the planet presently and to come. There's a bigger picture here. Sorry, It's obsurd!
Embryonic stem cell research hasn't helped any of us yet, maybe not in our lifetime as predictions are iffy and results of research may be 10, 20, 30 years or more down the road. I have no skin in the game it's just a question of ethics for me, but researchers have no ethics and the camel has its head in the tent.
Quote:
Truth-Telling and Scientific Integrity New breakthroughs in biomedical science are often hailed as potential cures for the diseases that plague modern society. In many cases, however, the breakthroughs fall short of initial expectations. Innovations such as the artificial heart, fetal tissue transplantation, and gene therapy proved disappointing when they were tested in humans.
A similar result could occur with stem cell research. The excitement over stem cell research is unprecedented, and this creates fertile ground for exaggeration. Researchers, patient advocates, and politicians promise stem cell remedies for nearly every major health problem in the United States. And the promises come from both supporters and opponents of embryonic stem cell research. Supporters stress the advances possible through embryonic stem cells, while opponents emphasize potential therapeutic benefits from adult stem cells and other alternative sources.1
The predictions on both sides violate the ethical responsibility to be accurate in describing the state of scientific exploration. Although there are a few established therapies that employ adult stem cells, most of the claims about stem cell therapies lack a solid evidentiary foundation. Much of the existing data comes from laboratory and animal studies. The first human trial of an embryonic stem cell intervention did not begin until 2009.2 It will be many years before researchers can gather the human data necessary to determine whether stem cells will live up to their promise.
Much remains to be learned about the therapeutic abilities of stem cells. The cells’ treatment potential lies in their capacity to develop into different types of specialized human cells. The hope is that they could replace cells damaged through illness or injury. For this to work, however, scientists must understand more about how transplanted cells behave in the human body. They must also develop the power to control how the cells develop. Without this power, the cells could cause cancer or other harm to the recipient.
Because the immune system rejects foreign tissue, immune rejection is another possible barrier to effective therapies.3 In theory, the problem could be solved by using stem cells created from a cloned embryo made with an individual patient’s somatic cell, but this procedure appears to present significant scientific challenges. 4 Moreover, economic and practical difficulties could impede efforts to devise therapies using stem cells from cloned embryos.5 More work is also needed to determine whether induced pluripotent cells, the latest potential substitute for embryonic stem cells, could be safe and effective sources of replacement tissue. Novel uses of other kinds of adult stem cells also need further investigation to determine their clinical utility.6
These and other scientific uncertainties make unqualified or barely qualified claims about therapies and cures from stem cell research ethically suspect. Ordinary people, including patients and their families, may be misled by such claims. They may develop unfounded hope for relief in a matter of months or years, rather than a more realistic understanding. They will be sorely disappointed once they become aware of the “significant technical hurdles… that will only be overcome through years of intensive research.”7
Inflated promises about stem cell benefits can harm vulnerable people and can harm the research endeavor, as well. When members of the public realize that much work remains before effective therapies can be devised, their support for stem cell studies may diminish. They may become less willing to urge government support for the research, and less willing to contribute to nonprofit organizations supporting stem cell research.
The hype about stem cell research threatens scientific integrity, too. The field was undermined when the world learned of the fraud committed by South Korean researchers who claimed they had created stem cell lines from cloned human embryos. Besides dismay at the research team’s failure to observe basic standards of scientific integrity, there was speculation that editors and peer reviewers at Science, the journal that published the research, were too eager to publish the cloning reports. Some wondered whether scientists’ enthusiasm for the stem cell field led them to be less demanding than they should have been in their scrutiny of the research claims.8
Other threats to scientific integrity arise when stem cell research becomes the basis for exaggerated claims by interest group lobbyists. Scientific organizations have claimed that limits on government funding for embryonic stem cell research could damage U.S. scientific preeminence. In the funding controversy’s early years, critics predicted a huge “brain drain” as U.S. scientists migrated to other nations offering generous support for the research.9 Yet few scientists actually left this country to engage in stem cell research.10 Several states stepped in to offer substantial funding, and nonprofit and private-sector support became available, too.11 Even before the Obama administration revised the federal funding policy, U.S. researchers had many opportunities to pursue embryonic stem cell research.
Stem cell research has become a hot-button political issue, and this development could tarnish the public’s respect for and trust in science. Traditionally, science has enjoyed bipartisan support in the U.S., and in many respects, it still does. The debate over government funding for embryonic stem cell research does not divide along party lines. At the same time, however, politicians and their supporters have used the stem cell cause to advance partisan objectives. As one observer reported in 2006, “Politicians from both major parties are trying to use such research as a ‘wedge issue’ to woo voters.”12
During the past decade, stem cell research became enmeshed in partisan politics from the national to the local level. Senator John Kerry made his support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research a major theme in his 2004 campaign for the presidency.13 For his part, former president Bush used his opposition to embryo destruction for research as a means to advance his campaign.14 In the 2008 presidential election, both candidates claimed to support expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but the issue became politicized when research advocates warned that Senator John McCain’s position might change if he were elected.15 Stem cells have also taken center stage in some state elections. In my own state of Missouri, where an initiative about stem cell research was on the November 2006 ballot, U.S. Senate and even county council candidates made stem cell research central to their election efforts.16 The topic was a major issue in the 2006 New York governor’s race as well.17
Stem cell research has joined abortion as a controversial matter on which politicians are expected to take a stand. It has become impossible to insulate this type of research from political debate. If stem cell research becomes identified with a particular political party or with specific candidates, then its fate could be determined more by politics than by substantive results in the laboratory.18
There is one positive development in the public discussion about stem cell research. Many stem cell research supporters have begun to convey more realistic messages about the prospects for stem cell therapies.19 In an ironic twist, one of the cautionary voices is James Wilson, who led the gene transfer trial in which Jesse Gelsinger died. Recounting the problems that came from the hype and haste surrounding clinical trials of gene transfer interventions, Wilson wrote in 2009, “I am concerned that expectations for the timeline and scope of clinical utility of [human embryonic stem cells] have outpaced the field’s actual state of development and threaten to undermine its success.”20 He called on stem cell researchers and professional organizations, like the International Society for Stem Cell Research, to “steadfastly discourage” the exaggeration characterizing many claims about medical benefits from stem cell research.21
Like Wilson, more experts and journalists express caution about the potential for stem cell therapies and focus instead on the value of stem cells as basic science tools that could help researchers understand how and why diseases develop.22 But it is still easy to find examples of hype about stem cell therapies, such as in the publicity surrounding the first human trial of an embryonic stem cell intervention.23
Like the Human Genome Project, stem cell research is most likely a form of scientific inquiry whose benefits will emerge slowly and incrementally. (Indeed, the Human Genome Project is now criticized as a costly research effort that to date has produced few actual medical benefits.24) Rather than presenting stem cell research as a short-term answer for today’s patients, supporters should portray it as a promising scientific development that might, after many years of investigation, contribute to new medical interventions.25 Just as physicians should be honest in disclosing a poor prognosis to a patient, scientists and advocacy groups should be honest about the lack of certainty that stem cell research will produce cures and effective therapies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2941662/
That's why they call it research and..... as is the case with anything......it takes time. Especially when you have the religious community standing in the way. Anyway.............. I've already seen commercials for clinics that do stem cell treatments. In the meantime, here's an article published by the Mayo clinic who apparently is performing treatments as we type. Stem cell therapy.....GOOD!
What are stem cell lines and why do researchers want to use them?
A stem cell line is a group of cells that all descend from a single original stem cell and is grown in a lab. Cells in a stem cell line keep growing but don't differentiate into specialized cells. Ideally, they remain free of genetic defects and continue to create more stem cells. Clusters of cells can be taken from a stem cell line and frozen for storage or shared with other researchers.
What is stem cell therapy (regenerative medicine), and how does it work?
Stem cell therapy, also known as regenerative medicine, promotes the reparative response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. It is the next chapter of organ transplantation and uses cells instead of donor organs, which are limited in supply.
Researchers grow stem cells in a lab. These stem cells are manipulated to specialize into specific types of cells, such as heart muscle cells, blood cells or nerve cells.
The specialized cells can then be implanted into a person. For example, if the person has heart disease, the cells could be injected into the heart muscle. The healthy transplanted heart cells could then contribute to repairing defective heart muscle.
Researchers have already shown that adult bone marrow cells guided to become heart-like cells can repair heart tissue in people, and more research is ongoing.
Have stem cells already been used to treat diseases?
Yes, doctors have performed stem cell transplants, also known as bone marrow transplants. In stem cell transplants, stem cells replace cells damaged by chemotherapy or disease or as a way for the donor's immune system to fight some types of cancer and blood-related diseases, such as leukemia. These transplants use adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood.
Researchers are testing adult stem cells to treat other conditions, including a number of degenerative diseases such as heart failure.
What are the potential problems with using embryonic stem cells in humans?
To be useful in people, researchers must be certain that stem cells will differentiate into the specific cell types desired.
Researchers have discovered ways to direct stem cells to become specific types of cells, such as directing embryonic stem cells to become heart cells. Research is ongoing in this area.
Embryonic stem cells also could grow irregularly or specialize in different cell types spontaneously. Researchers study how to control the growth and differentiation of embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells also might trigger an immune response in which the recipient's body attacks the stem cells as foreign invaders, or simply fail to function normally, with unknown consequences. Researchers continue to study how to avoid these possible complications.
What is therapeutic cloning, and what benefits might it offer?
Therapeutic cloning, also called somatic cell nuclear transfer, is a technique to create versatile stem cells independent of fertilized eggs. In this technique, the nucleus, which contains the genetic material, is removed from an unfertilized egg. The nucleus is also removed from a somatic cell of a donor.
This donor nucleus is then injected into the egg, replacing the nucleus that was removed, a process called nuclear transfer. The egg is allowed to divide and soon forms a blastocyst. This process creates a line of stem cells that is genetically identical to the donor's — in essence, a clone.
Some researchers believe that stem cells derived from therapeutic cloning may offer benefits over those from fertilized eggs because cloned cells are less likely to be rejected once transplanted back into the donor and may allow researchers to see exactly how a disease develops.
I'll put the link in the next post because it will be held up until it's approved........
That's why they call it research and..... as is the case with anything......it takes time. Especially when you have the religious community standing in the way. Anyway.............. I've already seen commercials for clinics that do stem cell treatments. In the meantime, here's an article published by the Mayo clinic who apparently is performing treatments as we type. Stem cell therapy.....GOOD!
What are stem cell lines and why do researchers want to use them?
A stem cell line is a group of cells that all descend from a single original stem cell and is grown in a lab. Cells in a stem cell line keep growing but don't differentiate into specialized cells. Ideally, they remain free of genetic defects and continue to create more stem cells. Clusters of cells can be taken from a stem cell line and frozen for storage or shared with other researchers.
What is stem cell therapy (regenerative medicine), and how does it work?
Stem cell therapy, also known as regenerative medicine, promotes the reparative response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. It is the next chapter of organ transplantation and uses cells instead of donor organs, which are limited in supply.
Researchers grow stem cells in a lab. These stem cells are manipulated to specialize into specific types of cells, such as heart muscle cells, blood cells or nerve cells.
The specialized cells can then be implanted into a person. For example, if the person has heart disease, the cells could be injected into the heart muscle. The healthy transplanted heart cells could then contribute to repairing defective heart muscle.
Researchers have already shown that adult bone marrow cells guided to become heart-like cells can repair heart tissue in people, and more research is ongoing.
Have stem cells already been used to treat diseases?
Yes, doctors have performed stem cell transplants, also known as bone marrow transplants. In stem cell transplants, stem cells replace cells damaged by chemotherapy or disease or as a way for the donor's immune system to fight some types of cancer and blood-related diseases, such as leukemia. These transplants use adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood.
Researchers are testing adult stem cells to treat other conditions, including a number of degenerative diseases such as heart failure.
What are the potential problems with using embryonic stem cells in humans?
To be useful in people, researchers must be certain that stem cells will differentiate into the specific cell types desired.
Researchers have discovered ways to direct stem cells to become specific types of cells, such as directing embryonic stem cells to become heart cells. Research is ongoing in this area.
Embryonic stem cells also could grow irregularly or specialize in different cell types spontaneously. Researchers study how to control the growth and differentiation of embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells also might trigger an immune response in which the recipient's body attacks the stem cells as foreign invaders, or simply fail to function normally, with unknown consequences. Researchers continue to study how to avoid these possible complications.
What is therapeutic cloning, and what benefits might it offer?
Therapeutic cloning, also called somatic cell nuclear transfer, is a technique to create versatile stem cells independent of fertilized eggs. In this technique, the nucleus, which contains the genetic material, is removed from an unfertilized egg. The nucleus is also removed from a somatic cell of a donor.
This donor nucleus is then injected into the egg, replacing the nucleus that was removed, a process called nuclear transfer. The egg is allowed to divide and soon forms a blastocyst. This process creates a line of stem cells that is genetically identical to the donor's — in essence, a clone.
Some researchers believe that stem cells derived from therapeutic cloning may offer benefits over those from fertilized eggs because cloned cells are less likely to be rejected once transplanted back into the donor and may allow researchers to see exactly how a disease develops.
I'll put the link in the next post because it will be held up until it's approved........
You are going to confuse the religious right with the facts.
It seems that the non-religious wants to make killing babies only a religious issue. However, there was no attempt to dehumanize the pre-born child until it was seen as a convenient ploy to get rid of the cute little guys. It is becoming a tougher battle now that GE 4D ultrasound and surgery on the pre-born have entered the picture. No, its not about religion in fact there are possibly as many abortions percentage wise among the religious as among the non-religious. When you want to get rid of the cute little guys believing the PPI lie is convenient (as for PPI just follow the money trail). Killing babies is a grisly business at best so a few lies to make it more bearable are convenient.
Linear Mode
