Slashdot Mirror

There are a bit over 70 treatments using adult or cord blood stem cells (list here) with embryonic cells being used in zero treatments. The plasticity of embryonic stem cells is a disadvantage it seems due to the tendency towards tumor formation.

It would be the first such treatment. So far adult stem cells have netted 73 treatments and embryonic treatments have yielded ZERO. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

The ratio of adult to embryonic research by the NIH is about 3:1. There are 73 stem cell treatments out of which 73 use adult cells. Were even 10 of those treatments from embryonic stem cells, I would concede that the embryonic funding was about reasonably productive. But that would be a different world.

There are zero restrictions on private money going into embryonic stem cell treatments. States do fund and private groups can fund what the federal government does not want to fund. But the private money generally isn't going to embryonic because the private money has to earn a rate of return and people get tossed out of work if they fund too many unproductive research proposals.

I like Michael J Foxx just as much as the next guy. I hope that he gets a cure for his disease. I think that it's a tragedy that he's spending so much time and effort to lobby on behalf of type of therapy that has not given any positive results in terms of actual therapies. And yes, he's manipulative as hell.

Why the devil has parent been modded flamebait? Just because he doesn't agree with the groupthink doesn't mean that it's a null/void opinion!

You must be new here.

#ifndef _SARCASM_H
#include <sarcasm.h>

Anyone who disagrees with the Slashbot hive-mind is obviously a reichwing Christianist deathbeast who must be silenced by the oh-so-tolerant-of-diverse-opinions progressives.

#endif

What I found disappointing was that the original poster in this thread was surprised that it was adult stem cells that provided this breakthrough. If he had googled "adult stem cell cures," he would've learned that they've already been developed into dozens of useful cures. Compare that to the number of useful cures derived to date from embryonic stem-cell research.

I'm sure this inconvenient truth (to borrow a phrase) will get modded down...so be it. I've quit giving a damn about /. karma. It's devolved into the collective opinion of a pack of foaming-at-the-mouth left-wingers; why should I pay it any attention?

Take a look at this document and search for the quote by van Etten. It's not just that aSCR is *ahead* of eSCR; it's also *growing faster.*

Said the scientists, adult stem cells have only been suggested by research to cure only seven diseases thus far, and most of them are skin diseases.

Said the scientists, adult stem cells have only been suggested by research to cure only seven diseases thus far, and most of them are skin diseases.

Said the scientists, adult stem cells have only been suggested by research to cure only seven diseases thus far, and most of them are skin diseases.

Because they're much more usable than adult stem cells. Get over it.

Sorry, but a citation please? Because I've found a few to the contrary for you:

1) http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.h tm
      (with it's own reference list a mile long)

2) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php
A snippet:
"These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities."

3) http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interr ogatory022601a.shtml
(An interview with the same scientist (for those lefties among you who love to hate the conservative rags):

4) http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03112001.html (If you like canadian docs' opinions...)

Contrary to how I'm sure it sounds, I'm not yet categorically opposed to using embryonic stem cells for research. I'm for science- and this mice story is absolutely incredible.

But cut the unsupported, non-cited one liners. They bring nothing to the table.

Non-embryonic stem-cell research is already miles ahead in providing cures

Embryonic lines consistently develop mutations that make them unusable.

Non-embryonic lines are progressing towards embryonic flexibility.

All of this pales, however, in view of the green dollar signs that float in front of researcher's eyes. Somehow, money seems to make morally outrageous actions seem legit. I have no problem turning off the flow of cash to research that amounts to cannibalism.

"However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is too bad the field of stem cell research in the US has been badly damaged by policies the current Whitehouse administration have put into place"

Ignorance like that pisses me off. This is umbilical cord stem cells, not embryonic. No US policy prevents this type of research, it's often referred to as "adult stem cell research", ignorning the fact it came from an infant.

The truth of the matter is adult SCR has yeilded tons of treatments (I met a woman last summer who is now walking after being told she'd never move anything from her neck down again), while embryonic SCR has not yeilded one successful *trial* even in rats.

Here's a score card with medical references:
Scorecard

If she gets up and walks, I don't think you need a peer reviewed journal to prove that the therapy works!

There is a picture of her doing just that here (sorry it's 3MB PDF file, pic is on page 30).

"I have yet to hear of embryonic stem cells ever working in a situation like this."

I'm no authority, but according to this site, treatments for 65 disorders have been created from adult stem cells, while none have yet been made from embryonic stem cells.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.h tm

I don't think that means that nothing good can ever come of embryonic stem cell research, but it grieves me to think that embryos will be created with the intent of destroying them, all for the potential of making life nicer for the rest of us.

The tone of the public debate makes it sound like it's "science vs. pro-lifers." But in fact, it's "pro-lifers vs. a particular technique of science which hasn't yet shown to be useful anyway, and which has a proven, non-objectionable alternative."

Actually, there's been considerably great results in stem cell research already. 65 viable treatments have been found. The only thing is, that is from ADULT stem cell research. The nice thing about adult stem cell research is that there are no sticky ethical/moral problems. The bad thing is, despite the fact that there's great results, everyone and their mother is focused on embryonic research.

A great link on adult rtem cell research is located at http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

Dr. Lima in Portugal has my MRI and I am on a waiting list. He uses stem cells harvested from the person's nose.
They are called remyelinating olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs).
http://www.healingtherapies.info/OlfactoryTissue1. htm
http://www.healingtherapies.info/OlfactoryTissue2. htm

Not quite what they are doing to rats, but hey!, what's with all these studies?, ...I have yet to see a rat in a wheelchair and I want out!

Here's an excerpt from http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimony/fajt.htm

The U.S taxpayer pays over $30 million per day on care for spinal cord injury and only $68 million per year in a search for a cure. Common sense tells me that by taking away two days of our care and in its place use this money for a cure, time will inevitably be on our side.

Take some time and check out the many entries you can find by doing a Google.

Cheers!

Funny. I would think that somebody suffering from a disease would do a little research on the subject of possible cures. A quick skim of wikipedia's stem cell article returns:

"Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also limited evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities--caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime."

Moreover, adult stem cells are being actively researched (not ignored as you seem to think). It's just that embryonic stem cells are far more promising at the moment.

You would not be so baffled if you had not been brainwashed by quack science websites like http://www.stemcellresearch.org/.

t's flame bait because you don't know if it's more or less promising research.

I'm sorry I didn't post the multitudes of papers available on the subject. I figured anyone who can get on the internet and view slashdot was fully capable of using Google to do a little research to backup my claim.

So if thousands of well-educated people in their field say this shows promise and someone outside their field says no it's pointless then either they're clueless or they're trying to start a flame war.

Oh, so I must be the only one who came up with adult stem cells as an alternative? There are thousands of scientists who believe adult stem cells are the better alternative. While embryonic stem cell research makes a Slashdot headline for actually doing something, adult stem cell research has had MANY results already.

http://www.marrow.org/MEDICAL/diseases_treatable_b y_stem_cell_transplants.html
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=860
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/adultste msuccess.htm
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=19641
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/prentice.htm
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2918stem_cel ls.html
etc.

So, with incredible results already being done, why focus on the back-burner? It's like continuing to research the vacuum tube when we've got transistors.

You won't get this information from the mainstream media. According to too many $tvnews, $majornewswebsite, and $radionews broadcasters, the Catholic Church thinks that ALL stem cell research is bad (evil / will send one to hell).

In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that fetal stem cell research is contemptable because those cells are derived from aborted babies.

The use of adult stem cells are OK, as adult organ transplants are OK, and adult stem cells are already in use in a number of cases.
Fetal stem cells are not.
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/Clini calAdultStemCells5404.pdf
http://stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Quote from article linked below:

"Had a major heart attack? In the not-too-distant future, doctors may be able to use stem cells to regenerate damaged heart muscle. And here's the exciting part: They can do it using stem cells that aren't extracted from human embryos."

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact4 01.htm

• However, embryonic stem cells are the cells which hold the real promise for research.

Embryonic cells are growing too fast, and are too unstable. They end up growing into a mess, since they can't be told what to grow into.

Adult cells are by definition those that are stable, having already grown into whatever their "children" will be. Embryonic cells (found in embryos with 1024 or fewer cells) can still grow into any type of cell, which we can't yet control.

It's true that embryonic cells hold "promise", but it comes at a cost. While we're trying to figure out (through the research you want) how to keep a group of embryonic stem cells from growing into an amorphous blob of cells for a discordant mixture body parts, how much effort and money are we spending on it that could be better spent on adult cell research, or even more efficiently by developing a cholesterol-enhancing french fry?

There's only so much money to go around. It's a balance between the far-off possibility of taming the embryonic cells versus the reality of using adult cells to fix broken bodies today.

See:http://www.stemcellresearch.org/stemcellreport

Well, the reason it ended up there was that it was one of the first things to pop on a google search for adult stem cell research. How about Wired.com, the Washington Post?

Now, do you have any reasons for opposing fetal stem-cell research?

I see it as unethical to create human life with the purpose of destroying it, particularly when an alternative exists (they even suggest that adult stem cell research has proven more effective, although I haven't really taken the time to fully explore this claim).

Well, the reason it ended up there was that it was one of the first things to pop on a google search for adult stem cell research. How about Wired.com, the Washington Post?

Now, do you have any reasons for opposing fetal stem-cell research?

I see it as unethical to create human life with the purpose of destroying it, particularly when an alternative exists (they even suggest that adult stem cell research has proven more effective, although I haven't really taken the time to fully explore this claim).

That'll teach me to not use the preview button. Real URL: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.h tm

Here is plenty of information for anyone who wants it.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

Except of course stem cell research is banned in the USA.

Fetal stem cell research is indeed banned, but as far as I know adult stem cell research isn't.

Personally, it looks to me like there are 2 very different sides of the story to this.

On one hand you have the "Pro-Life" advocates saying that you can't justify the research since it might play a part in the death of an unborn embryo. You can read a few of those types of articles here and here to get a feel for that side of the story.

On the flip side the AAAS has a very compelling document here in PDF format. Also CAMR has a nice little diddy about their stance here.

Bush and the Senate seem to have made their stance on the matter known as well...so enjoy!

There is alot of discussion, and alot remains to be seen, but I thought I'd toss out some links to help everyone form their own opinion on the matter.

Based on actual science, adult stem cells show results, and as great potential as the embryonic cells that this debate is stuck on.

Let's focus our attention on the cells that are show practical application.

Let's not distort science to show that "embryonic cells are the only hope," either.

Why not make additional investments in the areas of research that are already bearing fruit, rather than get enmired in a debate about whether using those cells is efficient & effective, or if it is killing people.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com