Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Pushing for Early Use of Stem Cells
hzs202 writes "BBC News is reporting that Professor Ian Wilmut is pushing for stem cell treatment to be offered to people with terminal illnesses. Professor Wilmut told journalists that the treatment could save lives or at least speed up the pace of research, however it is yet to be fully tested." From the article: "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"
But seriously, it seems to me that the motives of this Professor Wilmut may not be entirely pure. Certainly, it's difficult to argue against offering treatment to victims of neuro-degenerative disorders, and I know for a fact that if I was such a victim, I'd be clamoring for treatment as loud as anyone else, but does that make it right to use humans as guinea pigs to 'speed up the pace of research'?
It's easy to point out the suffering people and make a play for accelerated protocols based upon sentiment. It's not so easy to adhere to the standards of medical ethics and integrity. If Professor Wilmut was an uninvolved commentator on the issue, his opinion might hold a bit more weight, but the fact that he is one of the central players in the field tends to impune his impartiality in the matter.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
This kind of thinking does actually make sense in some specific cases. If you take a look at the history of Lorenzo's Oil, (or if you have seen the movie), it tells about how the father of a boy found a treatment for a disease (ALD in this case), and he started the treatment right away on his boy. ALD is a degenerative disorder that eventually kills its victims within 2-3 years of diagnosis. This father's treatment worked so well in stopping the disease that the medical community decided to start human trials right away, and it has saved literally thousands of lives already. If they had gone the usual method of rat testing, than maybe humans several years later, many ALD victims would have died by that time.
From the article: "If you've developed a treatment that might be beneficial in, say, motor neurone disease, then it's reasonable to allow people who are in the last stage of the disease to offer themselves. It sounds like they're being used as guinea pigs but sometimes people with a terminal illness volunteer to be used as guinea pigs if it will advance medical treatment for others," he said.
Just as with the ALD case, there are people out there with fatal diseases who do not have time to live to wait for some clinical trial ten years away. Assuming the treatment is as effective a Lorenzo's Oil and obvious, I say people should have a choice when it comes to these trials. Obviously there must be some safeguard againt fraud biotech/pharmo companies who make crap treatments. But even with the threat of these charlatans, there are many treatments out there with the advent of Stem cells that are sitting in petri dishes in labs around the world. Many of these treatments have yielded very promising results, and if terminally ill people had a chance to try these promising ones, good treatments that would otherwise have to wait for a decade or two could come to light much more quickly.
If you are able to replace certain cells in the body with new ones, does the aging process still have an effect on its development and effectiveness?
Even if you are able to grow a new liver from stem cells for your resident alcoholic, does this mean you will have to grow a new brain in order not to repeat the process?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"
We generally don't use humans as guinea pigs. Medical treatments need approval before they can be used. This guy clearly thinks the benefits outweigh the risk, but his opinion shouldn't be the one that decides.
If early testing shows no serious side effects and tremendous benefits, treatments can sometimes be fast-tracked testing phases. But if every time someone believed as this man, a treatment skipped testing, more people would die than be saved.
Testing and clinical trials exist for a reason. Because in many cases, they save lives. It's an imperfect system, to be sure, but it's better than the alternative.
could save lives or at least speed up the pace of research, however it is yet to be fully tested." From the article: "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"
There are two arguments for this problem, the first being that people should enjoy life while they are dying and not get tested on and have as long a life as possible. The second argument is that they SHOULD be treated and use whatevers possible that may work to help treat the problem.
I find myself falling on both sides of the fence, as if it goes horribly wrong, unspeakable things could happen with usage of stem cells. But I also think that if it has the potential to save people's lives, and minimize suffering and help people in general, it should be used.
#!/bin/bash
login root
chmod 775 universe://
stem cells from unimplanted embryos desginated for the trash heap != dead babies
pathetic.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
better to not develop them at all, lest they fall into the hands of wealthy people?
wtf, man?
Expensive drugs like AIDS treatments have found their way into the hands of plenty of poor people. What the hell are you talking about?
What life-saving medical procedures are ONLY available to wealthy people?
+++ATH0
I need these for my stem cell phone project - they're grown right in your ear!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I learned something interesting last week from friends of my wife and I. When their daughters were born (now 4 and 6yrs old, respectively), they had stem cells taken from their umbilical cords and sent off to a facility in (I think) Texas, where they're safely stored and frozen. Apparently the thinking is that (hopefully never, but...) maybe one day one of the girls will have some kind of ailment that requires the re-growth of an organ (for example), or similar. So they will pull the stem cells out of storage and use the 'current' medical advances to hopefully cure them.
I was amazed to find out that it is possible to do this and that people are doing it already! I think that is so cool! I meant to ask them if it cost anything, but I forgot. Anyone know?
Just thought I'd share, since we're on the subject...
Here's a stronger argument, the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant.
It argues that it is immoral and lethal for us to delay our work into longevity reasearch.
An unfertilized egg is lost, as well as the newly formed lining of the awaiting uterus. Do I have to explain the birds and bees to you to help you differentiate between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized one?
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
In what way is the argument for untested deployment of stem cell therapies different from the argument for untested deployment of any other new drug or treatment?
There is always a balance to be struck between safety and delay. The procedures exist for exactly this reason: to guide us in balancing risk and potential reward.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
No thanks, I'll not inject myself with dead babies.
Calling a stem cell a baby, is like calling a microwave a weapon of mass destruction. Stem cells are just that, cells. They have the potential to become something else, given the proper conditions, but so does pretty much anything else. Vitamins could be given to a pregnant woman, and then make there way through her body to her fetus, which could then grow into a sentient human being. The vitamins would make up part of that new person's body. But what if the woman had an abortion? Then those vitamins would be wasted. And, by your arguments, it would be unethical to reuse them.
If you think abortion is wrong, all the time, at any point in the process, well that is just fine. But arguing that abortion, by association, taints the very matter of the universe, well that is just plain foolish.
As a side note, you do know that there are many sources for stem cells, aside from abortions, right?
Stem cells present their own bit of politics, and really, I don't want to get into that discussion here. Lots of smart, well meaning people believe they should be used regardless of the source. Other smart, well meaning people believe that some restrictions should be in placed on the sources. It's not worth a flame war.
As to the real issue: Marketing. Anyone else recall that soda was first just another cure-all drug, available at the pharmacy? Certainly lots of people have heard of snake-oil. Heck, asperin was also a cure-all.
I'm not saying that stem-cell research doesn't have some nifty possibilities. In fact, I think it'll bring several new advancements to medicine. But, it's also being touted as THE way to solve every current problem that's mystified smart, well meaning scientists for a while. It's like you've got a job to do around your house, but you don't have the right tool for it (and don't even know what tool to use); so when a new tool is invented you immediately wonder how you could use the new tool for your job.
Anyway, as to your post specifically: If you really do have a serious illness, I would want you to get the best medical help that you could get. That means carefully weighing all the options, current medicine and research. Where I have problems is that in many of these cases, a doctor would recommend a certain risky new treatment over one that has marginal success but has been utilized numerous times. And, since you're the one suffering, you may not be able to properly weigh your options. I honestly don't care if people want to volunteer for research--but I don't think that the doctors doing the treatment are always giving the honest, hard facts; and I know it's very difficult to make huge life-and-death decisions when you're suffering. To me, that just makes the whole situation prone to abuse. That's why the FDA exists, and has such high standards. It's to prevent well-meaning doctors and scientists from getting tunnel vision and falling into the trap that "the ends justify the means".
Personally, I don't want a risky treatment if there are other, less dangerous options. That's even if these less-risky treatments have a lower probability of success.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
This straw man of yours.. "for better looking skin" is bit ridiculous. Find any reference in the article... or in any of the words by serious proponents of fetal stem cell research... that is referring to something as superficial as "better looking skin".
It's a false argument, and you know it. Nobody's talking about stem cell research for non-life-saving purposes.
It's a common tactic of "your side"... and it stinks.
and you also said this: So because you believe life begins when a baby leaves the mother's womb with absolutely nothing from me to indicate that. Fetal stem cell research is done with cells from unimplanted embryos... not from full-term babies. And you know it. Unimplanted embryos that were the result of IVFs and designated for the trash ANYWAY. You knew that too. We're not talking about "babies in their mother's wombs".. we're talking about embryos that have never been implanted IN a womb ... AND NEVER WILL BE. And you knew that too.
But keep setting up your straw men to knock down. It's a lot easier to win an argument when you invent the other side of it.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
I know there are multiple sources for stem cells. I simply objected to the readily available source that the vast majority here are clamoring for without giving a second thought - embryonic stem cells.
You can read whatever else you want from my statement, but that is all I was getting at. Get the stem cells from other sources(target's own body, umbilical cord, etc...), and I have no problem.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
My mom died and dad died of illnesses that could have been prevented, assuming this stem cell hype is true. Would I sign the waver allowing it to be done for them without knowing if they wanted it? Absofreakinglootly.
Why wouldn't I? Whos stalling here? People are dying, at least try it ONCE for crying out loud. Some patients can't get worse.
Why would you trust a testimonial when choosing hosting?
No thanks, I'll not inject myself with dead babies.
As long as you don't impose your choice on others... Some people would gladly inject themselves with dead babies, because they want to walk, talk and live normally again, and if it costs the use of cells that potentially could grow to become another person given the right conditions, then it's an ethical issue THEY have to deal with, not us.
While I understand the good faith efforts of people to implement working cures faster, I think this is incredibly thin ice to tread on.
Let's all keep in mind Barnum's Maxim when we hasten to implement all those "great" cures out there, that the (pokey, old fashioned, heartless gov/corps) don't immediately start distributing. There are LOTS of examples where the "perfect cure" ended up having heartbreakingly bad collateral consequences. Thalidomide, anyone?
If you, as a terminally ill patient, are willing to make yourself into a medical experiment that's cool - you will good or bad end up advancing medical knowledge to the benefit of all of us. (In fact, my father is still alive and thriving today due to a then-experimental bone marrow replacement technique.) But when you sign up for this stuff, you MUST then accept the consequences of being a lab rat, ie. you may die.
But make these decisions for YOURSELF, not for others. For the bulk of the population, the nice, long duration exhaustive testing works just fine. I personally think it's irresponsible for a scientist or a doctor to advocate this for anyone else.
-Styopa
Finally the medical/research industry learns from the software industry!
This is patently false, which is why I suppose you posted as AC. Stem cells from fetuses have NOT been found to cause cancer - that is misinformation put out by religious right groups. And there is NOT an "ample set" of fetal stem cells to test with... Bush lied about that. There are only 12 lines available for legal research in this country, not the "over 60" that Bush told of.
Thank goodness that the current U.S. administration doesn't have control over research being done elsewhere in the world... so this important work is still being done - just without the U.S.'s help.
You can all cut through the bullshit by learning for yourselves what stem cell research is all about:
Stem Cell FAQ by Stem Cell Research Foundation
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
You must be about as nervous as a Christian Scientist with appendicitis!
Come again?
Stem Cell research is thriving in the United States. In fact, most of the applications have come from U.S. labs.
Even Embryonic stem cell research is going on right now in the United States, including labs funded with Federal Research Grants.
The *only* thing not allowed in the U.S. is the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines (through the destruction of a fertilized embryo) using Federal funds.
And given the fact that currently adult stem cell research is approaching 40 different applications and embryonic stem cell research has currently found, uhm, zero , I'm okay with that.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
I say we use the stem cells to clone a new Shakey's Pizza!
Most people don't realise it, but you can get non-FDA approved therapies, including drug therapies, in this country unless they have been banned for some reason (like heroin, for example, or Laetril). Non approved drugs can be imported for personal use on order of a physician.
We in the medical fields do, however, have a responsibility to protect the public from fraud. It is hard to make an informed decision even if you are trained, and have the facts at your disposal. And to say "well, I'm dying anyway, what can it hurt" doesn't take into consideration the many harms done by bad therapy - delay in proper treatment (if any), co-morbidities, and even economic ills. I mean, you're dying - do you want to impoverish your soon-to-be widow by spending everything on worthless treatments? How about your kids?
I'm not saying stem cell research is worthless - it's almost undoubtably not. Healthcare decisions are hard, though. TFA(uthor) does not give enough credit to the thought and work which should be done before giving these therapies to anyone, dying or not.
Using plain ol' text since 1968
Stem cells do not come from aborted babies. They don't even come from fetuses. They are blastocyst.
Really the choice is "Do we throw away these cells that we already have, or do we do research to cure the sick who are alive?"
Here is some good news for you:
Research is underway to created stem cells in the dish. Now, if you want to put your money where you mouth is, support that research.
Of course, people like you often bask in there ignorance like it is some rightous fire, but it's not.
The same arguements where said for blood transfusions, transplants, and even steril working enviroments.
Please return to your mud hut.
Finally, I hope you relize that you HAVE to be against In vitro fertilization, if you are against the use of embryonic stem cells.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When you are faced with a terminal disease, there are a number of issues that most people don't understand. First off, you want to extend your life as long as possible. There comes a time, however, when regular treatments don't work and the only options available are experiemental treatments. As someone about to reach that point, I feel that if I can donate my body to medical science before I die so that others can be saved, it's the least I can do. Also, from a selfish standpoint, there is the possibility that experimental science can extent my life. Now, I'm not in favor of experimenting myself for studies that are too dangerous but that's my decision, not others. In a free country, the right to control how and what I do with my life and my body are not the decisions of the government or any of you. Obviously, these studies need to be controlled so that they don't get written up in the National Journal of Evil under studies on growing arms out of backs, but they are currently done every day at hospitals and research centers around the world.
Adding to your this case, I think that some political reality needs to be taken into consideration also.
This is Scotland, not the US we are talking about. To give a few (hopefully relevant) examples:
Abortion: no debate on the issue. Pro choice.
Religion: Church of Scotland and "no religion" make up over 2/3 of the population. Not exactly southern baptist country.
Politics: Has voted left wing for the last 50 years. "right wing" parties currently make up 15% of the Scottish parliament, the rest are left wing and very left wing by US standards.
Basically the point I'm trying to make is there is very little moral debate on the wither the use of any form of stem cells is right or not. I would the argue that the mood is more of a matter of when can we use them than if.
The second point to take into account in this area is this: This is Professor Ian "Dolly the Sheep" Wilmut talking. In general Scotland as a whole is very proud of this achievement and in a nation that prides itself on the discoveries and inventors it has produced over the years. What sane thinking politician is going to say no to these measures when half the political debate is focused around the "Smart Successful Scotland" iniative that the Scottish Executive has been presuing. Who could really get away with saying "Yes we want to have a knowledge based economy, but we have just forced the man who cloned dolly the sheep to carry out his work elsewhere."
So to summarise, expect the go ahead to be given in Scotland in a year or two, for it would be political suicide not too do so.
The idea that there is some kind of conspiracy to stop cancer and AIDS cures from becoming public knowledge is absurd. Whoever comes up with them will be able to retire 20 times on the proceeds.
Think about it. You could get AIDS, cure yourself, GET IT AGAIN, AND CURE IT AGAIN. The irresponsibility of the average idiot alone would be enough to keep the drug companies flush with cash for DECADES.
+++ATH0
Let's remove the words 'stem cell' and 'terminally ill' for a while. What he is advocating is relaxing the rules on human research for certain classes of people. His suggestion is morally reprehensible- expirimenting on humans without extensive research proving benefit and safety is just sick and isn't really good science. Regardless of the technology being tested or the body of people being tested on.
Common objections:
O: But it could save lives!
A: Breeding babies to full term and harvesting full grown organs for sale is possible now, could save lives, and is morally wrong. The ends do not justify the means.
O: You have no right to tell someone what to do with their body.
A: Actually I have a 'right' to tell people just about anything, and make my case. And they have a 'right' not to listen, or to listen objectively and change their mind.
O: If they consent to be expirimented on, who are you to object?
A: First, 'consent' is difficult to prove. How does one determine their consent wasn't coerced? Second, there is plenty of historical basis for prohibiting someone from doing everything they want- it's called the legal system. Again, a person may consent to have a child for the express purpose of killing it and giving it's heart to another child. Fortunately, this is illegal.
My wife and I had considered this--if it wasn't for the $2000 down payment and the $100/year fee beyond that, we probably would have signed up yesterday. It actually involves harvesting stem cells from the umbilical cord blood.
http://www.cordpartners.com/
http://www.cordblood.com/
http://www.corcell.com/