An Ethical Breakthrough in the Stem Cell Debate?
November 20th, 2007 at 06:53pm Leo Pusateri
Fr. Thomas Berg explains:
Ever since the debate of embryo-destructive stem-cell research began in earnest in 1998 when researchers at the University of Wisconsin first isolated human embryonic stem cells, we’ve known that the best overall answer to the ethical impasse would be a solution that both allows the search for stem-cell related cures to go foreword, while doing so without harming or destroying embryonic human life in the process.We now have that solution.
Two major scientific papers published today in Science and Cell offer proof of principle research to show that it is possible to generate patient-matched pluripotent stem cells without human cloning and its attendant moral pitfalls: the need to harvest and use human eggs from female donors and the subsequent destruction of cloned human embryos. Both studies used reprogramming of adult human cells to generate stem cells known as “induced pluripotent state cells” (iPSCs) that have all the properties of human embryonic stem cells.
[SNIP]
Reprogramming takes normal adult body cells — such as skin cells — and sends each cell’s nucleus back to a pluripotent state. In other words, the reprogrammed cells would then be capable of producing any tissue type in the human body — essentially equivalent in versatility to human embryonic stem cells. The reprogrammed cells would, furthermore, be genetically matched to the person who donated the original body cells. They could then be used to grow tissues for future use in tissue replacement therapies (everything from regeneration of damaged heart tissue to Parkinson’s to spinal-cord injury). A perfect genetic match, these tissues would not be rejected by the donor’s immune system. Most importantly, there would be no embryo created, destroyed, damaged or used in any way at any point in the process.The papers were published by Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, and by James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. A year ago, the journal Cell published Yamanaka’s research in which he reported successes in reprogramming mouse cells by adding four key genes to those cells. His findings were like a shot heard round the stem-cell world. Almost immediately after his work was published, two additional teams of researchers set out to duplicate and, if possible, exceed Yamanaka’s findings.
If the promise of this research comes to its fruition, look for the embryonic stem cell debate to be put to rest once and for all. And look for the pro-death crowd to have coniption fits.
Mind you, they won’t display those coniption fits openly; but know this– they will be in a state of mourning, as another of their strawman arguments for the disposability of human life is about to be turned into ashes.
And for the culture of death crowd, isn’t that what it was really all about in the first place?
Entry Filed under: Kook Left, Life Issues
28 Comments
1. CallMeTeach | November 20th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I would like to say I think this is a great breakthrough. I have however already seen posts saying “SEE THEY DIDN’T NEED TO KILL BABIES AFTER ALL”. In order to get to this place they HAD to use embryonic stem cells for research. Secondly, it will still be some time before this will become a viable option because in order to reprogram the skin cells they have to use virus’s and cancer causing cells to do so. Once they figure out how to make stem cells safely and which will not pose a threat to patients then we can hopefully get away from the use of embryos. I think this is a great advancement that will clear the way for science and the miraculous cures that may be possible through stem cell therapy.
2. jayhay | November 20th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
The “pro-death crowd”? The “culture of death crowd”? If you came to my home and sat with me, my wife, my three children, my brother & sister-in-law and their three children, my in-laws and our other friends at Thanksgiving this Thursday, I would dare you to sit at our table and call us the “pro-death crowd”. We are Americans, we have come to different conclusions than you on important decisions of our day, we do our best to do what is right for this country.
If you had the indecency to describe me & my family that way to our face, you would be shown the door. I would not allow my family & children to be insulted by your self-righteous, mean-spirited, Un-American tripe.
Unbelievable.
3. Casper | November 20th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I’m just curious, since there something like 400,000 embryos (fertilized eggs that have developed for six or fewer days) have been frozen and stored since the late 1970s, What do you suggest we do with them?
4. MrGone | November 20th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Deleted–off topic
5. Tractatus | November 20th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Still haven’t learned how embryonic stem cell research works, have you, Leo? Talk about something not the slightest bit surprising.
I’m just curious, since there something like 400,000 embryos (fertilized eggs that have developed for six or fewer days) have been frozen and stored since the late 1970s, What do you suggest we do with them?
Well, according to sad little wingnuts like Leo, if you throw them away, that’s OK, but if you try to do something useful with them, then you are MURDERING CHILDREN! BLARGH!
6. Leo Pusateri | November 20th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Jayhay, If you are pro-abortion, what would I call you, pro-life?
Sorry if the truth hurts, bud.
7. Leo Pusateri | November 20th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Casper and Tractatus, What have we done with over 40,000,000 other developing lives since the advent of Roe v. Wade?
What’s your point?
8. Leo Pusateri | November 20th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
And since most every study has found the futility of embryonic stem cell research due to the instability of the stem cells garnered from such, again, I ask, what is your point?
9. Casper | November 20th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Leo,
My point is, if you truly believe that these 400,000 embryos are developing lives, why aren’t we hearing about efforts to save them? From what I understand, at this point, most of them will be thrown away. Are you planning on adopting any of them?
10. Mark Noonan | November 21st, 2007 at 1:38 am
Casper,
There are programs out there to adopt such frozen embryos…of course, as a Catholic, I’m opposed to in-vitro fertilization, so in my perfect world this wouldn’t be an issue…people should be open to the gift of life, but also open to the gift of having few our no children and the varied opportunties that affords to serve people in other ways.
11. Mark Noonan | November 21st, 2007 at 1:41 am
jayhay,
Congratulations on your wonderful family - but you can either be on firm moral ground, or you can be in favor of legal abortion.
Pick one.
12. Mark Noonan | November 21st, 2007 at 1:44 am
jayhay,
Just to clarify - there are many things you are not allowed to decide for yourself.
The speed limit, the smoking age, the drinking age, the penalty for murder, the fine for jaywalking…so, while you get up there high and mighty and say that you’ve decided differently from us and that is ok, remember that you are speaking utter nonsense. There are many things you don’t get to decide - among them is whether or not you are permitted to deliberately end an innocent life…that is out of your hands; it belongs to God, and no one else.
13. USA | November 21st, 2007 at 1:55 am
Leo,
You are Wrong on so many levels. You might as well believe alien abductions with your credibility and insane claims.
14. USA | November 21st, 2007 at 2:08 am
“Jayhay, If you are pro-abortion, what would I call you, pro-life?
Sorry if the truth hurts, bud.”
Pro-abortion…who is for abortion? Your invisible friend I suppose is the closest thing you’ll get to a human being for abortion. Truth, huh?….Let’s call you pro-controlling-other-peoples-lives-because-I-want-to-be-God. The whole abortion issue really isn’t an issue when you describe where your body starts and ends and where the woman’s starts and ends. Only fools have this trouble. That’s right, IT’S NOT YOURS!
15. USA | November 21st, 2007 at 2:10 am
“Casper and Tractatus, What have we done with over 40,000,000 other developing lives since the advent of Roe v. Wade?”
People made decisions without your permission? I think we all should examine why that makes you so angry?
16. USA | November 21st, 2007 at 2:19 am
“jayhay,
Congratulations on your wonderful family - but you can either be on firm moral ground, or you can be in favor of legal abortion.
Pick one.”
And you to other control women because of why? Controlling people so you can feel “moral”(as you call it) doesn’t seem very moral.
A DEFEAT FOR CONSERVATISM AGAIN. YAY. We all see it. Why don’t you?
17. Leo Pusateri | November 21st, 2007 at 6:51 am
USA… what a miserable life you lead when you celebrate the taking of innocent life.
What’s your next move, dismantling the Reichstag?
18. Leo Pusateri | November 21st, 2007 at 7:04 am
BTW, USA–tell me exactly how I am “wrong on so many levels”
Inane platitudes and generalities don’t count.
I’ll check back on this thread tonight.
This oughta be rich.
19. Retired Spook | November 21st, 2007 at 8:16 am
I’m just curious, since there something like 400,000 embryos (fertilized eggs that have developed for six or fewer days) have been frozen and stored since the late 1970s, What do you suggest we do with them?
Casper, one of the interesting aspects of this debate that no one ever mentions is that these embryos belong to the couples who created them, not to some nebulous entity that can do with them as they please if only uncaring Conservatives would let them.
I ran across an interesting study with results that I found quite surprising.
Now I realize this was a Danish study, and public attitudes are decidedly more “progressive” in Denmark than they are here, but the question in my mind is, what’s stopping a couple from doing whatever they damn well please with surplus embryos?
I found it interesting that the Danish government puts a 24 month limit on cryopreservation of surplus embryos. Kinda makes me wonder if the embryos you say have been kept frozen since the 70’s are even viable. The whole line of reasoning sounds more like a red herring to me.
20. DougH | November 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am
First off, there are scientific studies where stem cells can be created from skin tissue
Cell News Opens Door To Drug Discovery
http://www.forbes.com/healthcare/2007/11/20/stem-cell-research-biz-health-cx_mh_1120stemcell.html?boxes=author
As for the 400,000 embryos, they actually come from living human beings,
They are not the property of the companies that store tham nor the propertyu of any government.
It should be the individuals right to decide what happens to them.
But obviously from the latest science reports and current research, the need for using embryos for stem cell research and medicine may soon be a thing of the past.
So there really is no debate to be had.. Once again science and industry are working at finding a solution.. without government or special interest passing bad legislation.
21. hermie | November 21st, 2007 at 10:55 am
Why DougH, don’t you know that the ‘consensus’ is that only embyronic stem cell research is the ONLY way that Michael J Fox will be cured and that it could have made Christopher Reeve walk again?
The science is settled, the State budgets allocated to ESC, and those who promote the adult stem cell research and this skin cell research should have their academic accreditations revoked and they should be drummed out of our universities.
22. DougH | November 21st, 2007 at 11:53 am
lmao .. too funny hermie…
The only thing certain about research science is that in 10 years they will prove that what they told you 10 years ago was incorrect.
23. USA | November 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
“USA… what a miserable life you lead when you celebrate the taking of innocent life.
What’s your next move, dismantling the Reichstag?”
Um, the only ones I know of who might be celebrating the taking of innocent life are the Republicans when they send over others children to fight in Iraq and kill innocent Iraqis.
Your not refering to me. But what a miserible life you must lead for beliving in a gross fantasy.
And, uh, did you read what I wrote or simply can’t process information like a human being? Because I am telling you twice now that nobody your refering to “celebrates the taking of innocent life”. Is there something wrong with you?
Should I just consider the Republican animal unable to reason?
24. USA | November 21st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
“BTW, USA–tell me exactly how I am “wrong on so many levels”
Inane platitudes and generalities don’t count.”
Sure they don’t. But if your eyes where open you could see how obvious your wrongness is,
“And look for the pro-death crowd to have coniption fits.”
Wrong. There is no pro-death crowd, only pro-CHOICE. No one will have coniption fits, perhaps you will since science found a way around uneducated crazy people.
“Mind you, they won’t display those coniption fits openly; but know this– they will be in a state of mourning”
Morning for what? Will you be in mourning because since science found a way around uneducated crazy people?…Is that what your psychologically projecting. Why don’t you tell us about your own feelings instead of dealing with them by projecting them on liberals.
I gave you enough of my time, your claims have a few linked references that would take time to read, so I’m not going to bother, knowing your track record of credibility and inablity to reason or use logic in your beliefe system. Please don’t pick apart my spelling to ignore my central arguement.
25. USA | November 21st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I destroyed about 80% of what wrong. Suprised that I wasn’t standing on “inane platitudes and generalities”? I just wanted to make sure you don’t claim some-kind of victory because I didn’t finish off the last 20%.
26. Tractatus | November 21st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Let’s not overlook that this discovery came in spite of Bush’s restriction, not because of it (emphasis mine):
One of the researchers involved in yesterday’s reports said the Bush restrictions may have slowed discovery of the new method, since scientists first had to study embryonic cells to find out how to accomplish the same thing without embryos.
“My feeling is that the political controversy set the field back four or five years,” said James Thomson, who led a team at the University of Wisconsin and who discovered human embryonic stem cells in 1998.
Also notice that what they’ve done is create a way to mimic embryonic stem cells. You know, the ones ignorant wingers like to screech are useless? “Not one cure discovered!” is their constant bleating.
Again, Leo, when it comes to the currently existing embryos, we have two options: Throw them away, or try to do something useful with them. I see you have come down squarely in favor of “we must not try to do anything at all useful with them.” No surprise that you are so dead-set against progress (or that your views are borne out of sheer ignorance). Also no surprise that when confronted with this, you quickly change the subject. Anger is all you’ve got–no facts, and certainly no logic.
27. DougH | November 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Well ‘one of the researches” missed out one simple point…. even with the restrictions, they were still able to achieve what they have achieved.
So obvioulsy it didn’t stop the progress of the research and there is no proof other than an opinion that having unrestricted access to embryos would have made there progress any quicker.
Besides give a me a researcher who doesn’t complain that a government doesn’t impded the research… they always complain about government interference or lack of support.
What can’t be disputed is that researchers and oranizations have miled the public to believe only allowing unrestricted access to embyos was the only way we could advance stem cell research..
Obviously they lied….
28. An Ethical Breakth&hellip | November 30th, 2007 at 3:09 am
[...] to spinal-cord injury). A perfect genetic match, these tissues would not be …Original post by Leo Pusateri delivered by Medtrials and [...]