Stem Cell Injections Pioneering Step Forward?

sanspeak writes "Indian Doctors at All India Institute of Medical Sciences have performed a radical new operation of sorts by pioneering the method of stem cell injections. Ishika Gupta, a seven month old girl child who was suffering from cardiac myopathy, was treated by injecting stem cells into her heart from bone in her own leg. AIIMS has marked a global first in pioneering stem cell medicine by the "injection method''." From the article: "There will now be a national stem cell centre at AIIMS which will coordinate the research and its applications. The statistics speak for themselves. After six months, 56% of the affected (dead muscle) area injected with these cells had shown improvement." Additional details on this therapy available from the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel and Medical News Today.

Comments

Preemptive strike

[Anonymous Coward]

Directly on-topic? Well, no, but I guarantee there will be several positively moderated messages in this thread that don't get it right.

- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant

But for those who still don't get it:

- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)

- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.

- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being...

(Note: No, I am not anti-abortion, but do think we should acknowledge that abortion isn't just a "woman's choice" or a "medical decision" (unless it is a decision in relation to the safety of the mother). It is, essentially, the state sanctioned ability to end a life when it is not wanted by the mother. Let's at least acknowledge what we're doing instead of hiding it under the blinders of "choice" or "scientific progress".)

Re:Preemptive strike

[Corporate Drone]

Your post would have been great if you had left out the ridiculous note at the bottom. No one cares if you're anti-abortion or not.

Well, you may not care about the OP's position on abortion, but the ethical issues s/he raises wrt embryonic stem cell research are the same ethical issues surrounding abortion. (Note that I didn't say political issues... the "right to choose" issues are primarily political, not ethical, in nature.)

By identifying that s/he is not necessarily anti-abortion, the OP simply sought to blunt any knee-jerk reactions like "oh, we can just write off your opinion... you're just one of those anti-abortion folks..."

Re:stem cell harvesting

[Doctor Beavis]

I look at it like this - the odds are you'll never use it. But if something comes up (child has a sibling with leukemia and needs a transplant or scientists eventually figure out how to do amazing things with these cells), you'd be willing to pay any price to go back in time to get the cells. Go for it!

Not only adult stem cells -- RTFA...

[Corporate Drone]

Sure they are harvesting cells from the bone marrow which do contain some stem cell populations

Although the U.S. article identified the applicability of stem cells harvested from (adult) bone marrow and other sources, the Indian article discusses the successes achieved from utilizing umbilical cord stem cells...

References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[daveschroeder]

- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant

But for those who still don't get it:

- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)

- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.

- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being...

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[Zphbeeblbrox]

Exactly. Certain Questions need to be asked and answered before we just leap willy nilly into embryo harvesting. Any one who can't say for certain when life actually begins has no business deciding when its ok to destroy a living embryo. That's like a man taking a gun with one bullet and him firing it at someone without knowing if the bullet is in the chamber. It's irresponsible. And saying I didn't know when the bullet would come up is no excuse.

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[daveschroeder]

he seems to value the `life` of an embryo above the lifes of Iraqi civilians, for instance.

So if the actions in Iraq end up saving Iraqi lives that would have ended (or been miserable) had the status quo been allowed to continue (regardless of our motivations for the war), then what would you say? Remember, various human rights organizations have said that approximately 50,000 Iraqis were dying per year during the previous 12 years as a direct result of sanctions...

In other words, if there ends up being a net preservation of Iraqi lives, then is it acceptable? Or can you not grasp the concept that lives lost in the course of this action might actually result in saving a much greater number? Or is that never ok because we can't know that "for sure", therefore, no action or sacrifice should ever been taken on the part of anyone for the furtherance of a greater good.

Of course, it's no surprise that yet another Bush bashing book might gloss over that little issue.

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

before we just leap willy nilly into embryo harvesting.

People can't even be bothered to donate their organs for transplants. You think that people who would never have had an abortion otherwise are going to line up to give up their embryo?

It doesn't matter if its "music makes people kill people" "video games makes people kill people" or "stem cell research makes people kill people" it still shows a serious disconnect with reality, whether through ignorance or through pushing an agenda (religious or not). Hundreds of embryos are thrown away daily across the country for whatever reason.

It's interesting that people cite the fact that more research is done on adult stem cells and therefore more successes are had with adult stem cells than with embryonic stem cells. Its also interesting to see them call Bush's ban on funding new embryonic stem cell lines not a ban on research, though with only a few dozen lines remaining, theres not exactly a lot of research to be done.

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[BWJones]

- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant

Actually, this is absolutely relevant given the Bush administrations limits on funding for stem cell research. Research laboratories are leaving the US to establish themselves in other countries so that they may continue and the science in this country is suffering because of it.

- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)

I have news for you: Most biomedical research funding for basic science comes from the Federal government and is taxpayer supported. Thus, elimination of funding is a tacit ban.

- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.

Not true. The bush administration is the first administration that has said anything specific about it. Stem cell research has been going on for quite some time. It has just not been an emotional or religious issue until it became politicized.

But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered?

I absolutely agree with you here as will most scientists. But the solution is not to prevent progress by placing arbitrary, political and religiously motivated limits on scientific progress. People are dying today and living compromised lives because of diseases that may be helped by stem cell research. And no, embryonic stem cell research is not about killing babies or farming developed humans.

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[abigor]

Well, it's really one of those issues that will never be settled in any definitive, "hard" way. Western society has dictated that abortion is okay, for the most part, and the same with things like embryonic stem cells used in research. Personally, I'm happy about this, and I anticipate even more forward-looking social policies.

It's like the death penalty. Both sides make their points, and it comes down to the values of society as a whole, and the price its members are willing to pay for the sort of society in which they wish to live.

The consensus of society is that it's okay to delete those "couple of cells", because the needs of the rest of us do indeed outweigh those of the embryo.

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[danheskett]

No, no institute which recieves federal funding FOR ANYTHING can conduct such research. There are not many research facilities that aren't recieving federal funding for at least ONE project. This is effectively a ban.
That's and out and out lie.

Fact: Researchers at mixed funding facilities only have to properly account for federal funds according to normal guidelines. There is no extra baggage at all. Here is a link for you to read, from the NIH, who is responsible for this policy.

Fact: Virtually all embryonic stem research going on in the country currently operates in partically federally funded scenarios. There is no "effective ban".

Fact: The Bush administration is the only administration to fund any embryonic stem cell research. Period.

As far as the rest of your post, you are using classic red herrings which is not surprising.

Scientifically the cells are alive before they ever join to become a fertilized egg. Scientifically each of the millions of skin cells each of us has die everyday are life. We kill living cells when we mow our lawns or take anti-biotics.
Yes, however, none of those killed cells are capable of developing into a fully seperate heathly human life. They are *part* of our body, but they are not *our entire body*. Embryo's are entirely capable of developing into fully heathly living beings, while skin cells, liver cells, and blood cannot.

Scientifically moral and ethical issues do not exist, it is people who create these artifical constructs. Humans attribute a uniqueness or addional value to their own lifeform.
Yes, of course they. We are the only species who can question our own existenance. Provably, we are a unique lifeform within our realm of knowledge. It is at least reasonable to *think* and *question* what makes us unique, and whether that is worth protecting.

It is called birth. Of course if something is raised entirely artifically (which we can't do now with humans) we can roughly call it at a full development term (9months for humans).
Finally, this is extremely poor reasoning. A baby child can live without life support outside the womb well before 9 months. It depends on the baby, but some premature babies have survived as early as 30 weeks (7 1/2 months) and others with life support as early as 26 weeks (6 1/2 months). Scientifically, there is no difference between a baby that is two days from delivery from one that is two days past delivery. As a lifeform, each is equally developed. Science coldly is incapable of handling the emotional difference between the unborn and born.

I am not arguing one or another, but you are clearly distoring the facts and ignoring complex non-religious facts that science is incapable of addressing.

Re:so thanks to bush

[Zphbeeblbrox]

All Bush did was say no government funding of Fetal Stem Cell harvesting. A good choice to make if you aren't sure when life begins or if you think it begins at conception. Harvesting Fetal Tissue from an embryo killed for the purpose would be wrong and evil if life begins at conception. Wisdom isn't always recognized as such though.

Re:Not a general solution.....

[Anonymous Coward]

"...religiously imposed dogma on science and progress."

One does not have to be religious to be concerned with the harvesting of embryos to gain use of their stem cells.

Re:stem cell harvesting

[PortHaven]

Nothing wrong with having stem cells harvested from the cord. The only issue with stem cell harvesting is when it involves the loss of life.

Human life should not be saved at the cost of human life....(lest one day poor humans will be harvested to keep the powerful immortal)

Re:There is no ban!

[opposume]

The answers to these questions are all arbitrary. A million different people can come up with a million different answers. Which leaves us to a few making the distinction for us, which inevitably will alienate a vast majority who don't believe the same thing. You're right, it's more than a womans choice and a medical decision. However, it is not our place to judge or deside for people as to what they can and can not do in this regard. I think that put into any other terms other than "womans choice" or "medical decision" is imposing a belife onto somones person. I just think that people are entirely too quick to pick up the flame of moral superiority instead of just letting people live their lives. I guess I'm kind of an anarchist in that sense. And my opinion doesn't matter to anyone but myself. So I won't voice my opinions here. All told, I agree with you that there's more to it, however, I think people should be left to make their own decisions instead of having them imposed on them. Also, I sit corrected on the state of the stem cell research area in this country. The point I was trying to make wat that the Bush administration (not bush bashing here) won't fund new line stem cell research due to religious beliefs, rather than scientific reasoning. That is all...

Re:so thanks to bush

[Zphbeeblbrox]

The key word here being think. And no I don't think conciousness is what we are talking about. I'm talking about life period. If conciousness is your defining characteristic of being worthy of living then you have to decide what level of conciousness. do senile people deserve to live? how about those with a lower mental capacity? And as far as the soul goes. Are you sure there isn't such a thing? cause in that case why should any human life be valuable? If it is not of use to society then just get rid of it. I'm not sure you really want to go that route.

some points

[circletimessquare]

if women laid eggs and then walked away from them, never to return, then the anti-abortion crowd would be 100% ethical and moral in their stance

however, mother nature has designed us mammals so that for a moment in time, 2 lives are interconnected biologically, and then, 2 lives are socially connected for years

what this means is that you can not consider either the rights of the fetus or the rights of the mother in a vacuum and consider yourself to be moral or ethical

therefore, to fall 100% on the side of fetal rights is to basically consider a woman to be nothing but a breeding pod chamber

and to fall 100% on the side of maternal rights is tantamount to considering infanticide reasonable

but, of course, exactly where you draw the line, exactly when you draw the line: 3 months old fetus... 3 day old fetus... whatever, that becomes the critical question

and the problem is that no outside panel of people, no matter how reasonable or passionate about the issue, can decide the issue to satisfaciton on each individual case

there is, however, one person who can make such a passionate, reasonable decision: the mother

it seems that the anti-abortion crowd thinks women are all out having one night stands at raves and then aborting a month later and going to another rave to have one night stands the same night

as if women don't have any feelings about the fetus?! why do anti-abortionists have such a dim view of women?

so let the mother decide, and the mother ALONE decide, and all of us hyperconcerned but UNINVOLVED third party members should learn to BUTT OUT

this is the ONLY moral and ethical stand you can take on abortion: the mom decides, no one else can possibly have a say

is it superior to force a woman to have a child she does not love with no father there to support it?

are we only in the business of punishing women for acts of sex outside of marriage? what about the man's responsibilty?

the more you examine the issue, the more you realize anti-abortion stances are simply anti-women

let the mother decide, it's her body, and you cannot assume she doesn't care about the fetus, unless you have some sort of psychological problem with women

Re:some points

[GreyWolf3000]

Well, there is the argument that women who don't want to have a baby could give the baby up for adoption. In which case, the "rights" of the fetus and the "rights" of the mother are not impugned too greatly.

I think moral questions shoud be answered without the word "rights" because generally it's a question of whether or not a person or group should be granted the "right" to commit some act.

If it's morally acceptible, one should be allowed to do it. If it's morally unacceptible, then the government has a new choice: should it be legal but frowned upon, or illegal? What should the penalties be?

At this point in the debate of abortion, we should try and come up with an answer for the question--is it wrong to abort a fetus? We might need to break it down, i.e. is it wrong to abort a fetus in the first trimester? How about the third?

Before we get "rights" and laws into it, we should get more facts. Then questions like "is the abortion necessary? Can we provide an equitable alternative?" should come in to play.

You need to look at that argument more carefully.

[porkchop_d_clown]

If the only thing of value is that more lives were saved than lost, then the same argument can be applied to therapies derived from embryonic stem cells.

If more lives are saved than lost, what do you care if a few embryos were harvested for this treatment.

Re:It's about time

[mOdQuArK!]

embryonic stem cell research

Yeah, kind of funny (not ironic) that research which isn't being funded well can't produce a single cure, whereas the research that _is_ does. Duh.

Re:Slashdot IS a Technology Jounal

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't that slow evolution? What's the point of slowing down what humans will evolve into next. Maybe we aren't the next best thing anyway, let the next more powerful warp enabled species take over.

U.S. Head in the Sand

[jIyajbe]

"Indian Doctors at All India Institute of Medical Sciences have performed a radical new operation of sorts by pioneering the method of stem cell injections...There will now be a national stem cell centre at AIIMS which will coordinate the research and its applications..."

So, despite the assurances of U.S. politicos, once again the U.S. is NOT the world leader in science and technology. Another country leads (gasp! A THIRD-WORLD country!), and the U.S. has a flat tire.

Standard U.S. knee-jerks:
"Stem-cell" == "abortion"
"nuclear" == "bomb"
"food" == "McDonald's"
"Britney Spears" == "music"
"language" == "English"

Re:Not a general solution.....

[Hentai]

Okay. I have mod points today. I have a personal, stated policy: Never mod *DOWN*, only mod *UP*. And especially never mod down a potentially legitimate discussion, no matter how inciteful or off-topic it might be.

I have come very close to breaking this rule in this threat, and modding as many root posts as I can 'off-topic'. Instead, I am going to post the following little diatribe:

We're witnessing a medical miracle here, guys - and all you asshats can do is argue politics! Bush this, bush that, fetus this, abortion that - sort it out on Usenet, or on some YRO thread. Can we please talk about the technology, here? This is an amazing triumph of technology over the limitations of nature; something that can potentially save millions of lives - and just as importantly, restore millions more to full capacity from severely disabled states! We're talking longevity, health, disease eradication, all the quality-of-life improvements that have allowed further progress in the past two centuries. We're talking about influences over the next MILLENIUM of human prograss, and all we're doing is squabbling about politics that are potentially irrelevant in 4 years, and almost certainly irrelevant in 20. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?

This is future-of-humanity stuff, here. This political whining is about minor details in the grand scheme of things, and we'll work them out sooner or later. Get a grip and get a little perspective.

Re:stem cell harvesting

[MadMorf]

Human life should not be saved at the cost of human life....

So, then committing troops to battle, no matter for what cause, shouldn't be done?

I'm not a supporter of the current administration's colonial policies, but what about WWII?

Should we not have intervened to stop the Nazi domination of Europe and the wholesale slaughter of Jews, Slavs and Gypsies?

Your comment is just wrong and ill-informed.

Re:Not a general solution.....

[learn fast]

Because the politics is relevant to the technology here. Specifically, politics may be standing in the way of this future-of-humanity stuff, and, well, that makes people kind of mad.

And IMO one's side's arguments (because stem cell research hasn't TOTALLY STOPPED that means the arbitrary restrictions must be OK) spur a lot of responses.