Embryonic Stem Cell Research Cures Blindness

[jrrrrrrr]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6122757.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164

British scientists have recently used the fruits of embryonic stem cell research to cure the most common form of blindness, age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Here are some important quotes out of the article:

BRITISH scientists have developed the world’s first stem cell therapy to cure the most common cause of blindness. Surgeons predict it will become a routine, one-hour procedure that will be generally available in six or seven years’ time.

(capitalization is theirs, not mine)

It affects more than 500,000 Britons and the number is forecast to increase significantly as people live longer. The disease involves the loss of eye cells.

He welcomed Pfizer’s agreement to manufacture the membranes, saying: “This is a major development because of the size of the partner. We need a big pharmaceutical company to scale it up.

“We have nearly 14m people within Europe with AMD. This will ensure that the therapy gets through to clinical trials in a safe and effective manner.”

Pfizer will be taking charge here, attempting to make this a common procedure for doctors.

Professor Peng Khaw, director of the Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields and the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, added: “This shows that stem cell therapy is coming of age. It offers great hope for many sufferers around the world who cannot be treated with conventional treatment.” He added: “All my patients say to me is, ‘When will this stem cell treatment be ready? I want it now’.”

The only bad part about this is that all of this research was made impossible by the Bush administration's banning of embryonic stem cell research. While American doctors were busy trying to elect a President that understands science enough to make reasonable judgments on the issue and also to find replacements for embryonic stem cells, doctors from other countries were making amazing breakthroughs like this. Just as stem cell proponents predicted, doctors from other countries made huge advances that could have been made in America. Despite the countless amount of embryos that are destroyed by fertility clinics, the Bush administration decided that scientific advances to benefit millions, if not billions of people were not as important as the lives of a few clumps of cells. Now, other countries are getting a leg up on our competition and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. I can only imagine how many lives are lost every day to diseases that could have been cured by stem cell research, all in the name of being "pro-life".

I can update the thread with more info on the treatment if needed, I just felt like this framework was enough to promote a discussion. Either way, it is certainly a groundbreaking advancement in science and I thought I'd share it with everyone here, since chances are something like this will be avoided by right-wing American Media.

 

[Caelum]

I just wanted to point out it's not entirely accurate that embryonic stem-cell research was "banned" under the Bush administration. Federal funding was just not provided. I thought that was important to clarify.

Despite the countless amount of embryos that are destroyed by fertility clinics, the Bush administration decided that scientific advances to benefit millions, if not billions of people were not as important as the lives of a few clumps of cells.

I don't believe that Bush felt the destruction of the embryos at fertility clinics was justified either; he just wasn't able to stop that so easily.

Actually, I don't know what this article is talking about since vision-repair via embryonic stem cells has been performed since 2003. Maybe the article meant this treatment would be more accessible to the masses than the other, more invasive (and very expensive) methods developed at universities.


Anyway, I am for most research regarding embryonic stem cells. It's interesting to note though that, on the whole, scientists have been more successful at utilizing adult stem cells for treatments. It would be nice if adult stem cells would be entirely usable for these types of treatments since avoiding the controversy altogether would be most appropriate.

 

[Polis4rule]

since chances are something like this will be avoided by right-wing American Media.

Lol FOX News.

But honestly, I am a full supporter of embryonic stem cell research even though I am conservative in many beliefs and will become a member of the Republican Party. I fully comprehend the wide array of benefits that will come from stem cell research. I am not fully pro-life, so taking stem cells from embryos do not bother me what so ever. The Bush veto of the bill was almost over turned by the Congress; they just needed one more vote. Unfortunately, we lost a lot of ground from this and now we have to pass some legislation that legalizes all of this.

 

[Relictivity]

I think the reason it was not funded is because we had an alternative option - adult stem cell research. I think in can do pretty much the same thing, although there are advantages and disadvantages to both. However, adult stem cell research as far as I know not only does not destroy an embreo, but it is also safer (less chance of body rejection).

 

[Polis4rule]

As far as I know, and I'm not trying to act like an expert, adult stem cells are vastly limited in the amount of potential when compared to embryonic stem cells. That and the fact that adult stem cells are tailored to one type of organ/purpose.

 

[Relictivity]

As far as I know, and I'm not trying to act like an expert, adult stem cells are vastly limited in the amount of potential when compared to embryonic stem cells. That and the fact that adult stem cells are tailored to one type of organ/purpose.

That's true. The thing is, blindness usually comes after birth, so most of the tissue in the eye would not be harmed, even with blindness. From those, an adult stem cell can be taken and a new eye can be grown. I don't know if anybody has succeeded in doing this - but then again, I don't know if anybody has tried.

To be truthful, I (and I'm guessing most people) don't know enough about stem cells to say which is better scientifically. They both have some risk. I'm just guestimating. Morally, however, I'm against embrionic stem cell resarch.

The wikipedia article on stem cell research is sure interesting though...

 

[TAY]

I think the reason it was not funded is because we had an alternative option - adult stem cell research. I think in can do pretty much the same thing, although there are advantages and disadvantages to both. However, adult stem cell research as far as I know not only does not destroy an embreo, but it is also safer (less chance of body rejection).

nope

The vetoed bill "would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," the president said, as babies cooed and cried behind him. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." Each child on the stage, he said, "began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete. . . . These boys and girls are not spare parts."

I think this is an excellent advance (even if it is just that the treatment is becoming more widely and cheaply available). My high school film teacher is going blind due to AMD, which is incredibly sad since he's a really cool and nice guy and jesus christ I almost cried when I found out he wouldn't be able to watch films anymore (he worked in Hollywood for 7 years but gave it up to take care of his kids).

Anyway, I have never understood the logic for opposing stem-cell research. The cells used would literally be thrown away otherwise, and they are nothing more than that - a lump of cells. Can someone explain this to me, because I honestly have no idea (and don't say "it's because there are other ways to get stem cells!" because that is a complete deflection of the issue): how is stem cell research bad or harmful at all?

 

[Griffin]

Can someone explain this to me, because I honestly have no idea (and don't say "it's because there are other ways to get stem cells!" because that is a complete deflection of the issue): how is stem cell research bad or harmful at all?

You could argue that, if embryonic stem cells can be used to cure diseases/do research that will lead to curing diseases, that people will create these embryos just for that purpose.

I don't think it's true, nor do I share their point of view, but I've heard it used as an argument.

 

[TAY]

Why would that be done when there are literally hundreds of thousands of embryos (awaiting destruction, mind you) that could be used for research? (see: article in my previous post; yes I'm aware it's old but I doubt that has changed).

Also it's a bit difficult to make a slippery slope argument when we've been on flat ground for so long =/

And at any rate that could be made the other way: if using stem cells for research is forbidden since it takes away a human life, why are we throwing them away at all? Even if it's difficult to argue, shouldn't someone who is against stem-cell research be opposed to throwing them away on moral grounds?

 

[Phantom_IV]

TAY, i believe religious groups were those most stoutly opposing embryonic stem cell research. "Life starts at conception, therefore even embryos have rights, and thus should not be sacrificed to science." IMO it doesnt make much sense, but Bush was really courting the religious right, plus the group in general is pretty influential.

 

[Relictivity]

nope

The article says that Bush did not ban adult stem cell research however.

Anyway, I have never understood the logic for opposing stem-cell research. The cells used would literally be thrown away otherwise, and they are nothing more than that - a lump of cells. Can someone explain this to me, because I honestly have no idea (and don't say "it's because there are other ways to get stem cells!" because that is a complete deflection of the issue): how is stem cell research bad or harmful at all?

Mmm.... it partly has to do with a belief in souls, that are there even before birth. So it's kind of like not giving a person a life who deserved a life.

I kind of have this kind of view, and I think it sad that there are embreos just sitting there. It is incorrect of the fertility clinics to make embreos till they get one with certain circumstances except in extreme circumstances (like where they get an embreo where the person if born will have a disease that will make them die hours after birth). But yah, your right, we shouldn't be "throwing away" embreos.

 

[Deck Knight]

At last, embryonic stem cell research proves it is not a complete waste of time, energy, and resources. This brings its total up to 1 cure, 1 treatment, hooray!

Adult stem cells have all the benefits of embryonic stem cells without the needless destruction of human embryos, and have already been used in numerous cures and treatments. American companies have been investing in adult stem cells and found more than one cure from them.

But I love jrrrrrrr how you immediately jump to the conclusion that depriving something of federal funding is "anti-science."

Barack Obama left infants to die in linen closets because he wasn't quite sure what "born alive" actually meant, no matter how slowly and thoroughly people explained it to him on his way to opposing the measure 4 times. He has also proclaimed when it comes to matters regarding human life it is "above his paygrade." To believe that man has any grasp of science requires a willful suspension of disbelief.

So after years embryonic stem cells have finally managed to accomplish something before destabilizing into a metastasizing cancer. And it didn't even take US taxpayer dollars to do it.

Now would be an excellent time to trot out Michael J. Fox again and promise the blind, Alzheimer's patients, and all the infirmed that all their hopes will be answered by the 1-cure wonder once more. Or you're anti-science!

 

[Morm]

Deck Knight, that is a pretty ignorant post to be making. The potential of stem cells is the sole reason to investigate them further, these findings just confirm the obvious in that we should be giving them funding. Since the rationale behind funding them is to advance research, and the rationale behind not funding them is usually linked to some sort of faith or unfalsifiable opinion, NOT researching it DOES make it anti science. Taking the route of nonscience when the alternative is science, by definition, is anti-science because it hinders the progression of science.

The key difference, as I understand it, between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is quite stark, actually. Embryonic stem cells, from what I learn in biology classes in university, are less 'defined'. They can literally become anything that you guide them to be, whereas adult stem cells already have some of the guidance layed in so it's got less potential overall.

You do know, deck knight, that umbilical chords in infants is a legitimate source for embryonic stem cells? So your moral reasons, which I'm guessing are the main reasons here, go right out the window since you can acquire these by non-invasive and unharmful ways, considering the chord is usually just tossed anyways.

 

[Ancien Régime]

This debate may well be ideological; there are methods of extracting embryonic stem cells without actually killing the embryo.

Why can't both sides get behind those methods from a moral perspective?

Also, why aren't adult stem cells viable? Anyone with a medical/biomedical/genetic background that can enlighten me?

EDIT: I guess Mormoopid's answer makes sense, though I'd probably want a bit more detail in regards to the limitations (does this make them wholly unviable, or just "a bit worse"?)

I am absolutely pro-stem cell research from a moral perspective as long as the embryo/fetus/baby/adult is not harmed in the course of said research.

 

[TAY]

Adult stem cells have all the benefits of embryonic stem cells without the needless destruction of human embryos, and have already been used in numerous cures and treatments. American companies have been investing in adult stem cells and found more than one cure from them.

from the wikipedia article on stem cell lines:

Adult stem cell lines isolated from mature tissues are commonly used in stem cell research, as are cells isolated from umbilical cord blood. However, these cells have a genetic imprint of the host they were taken from, thus limiting their therapeutic use in genetic disorders. Also, adult stem cells are not totipotent or pluripotent like embryonic stem cells, but rather more specialized cells that are multipotent.

But I love jrrrrrrr how you immediately jump to the conclusion that depriving something of federal funding is "anti-science."

Depriving a legitimate and potentially groundbreaking (as has been show by this development) scientific venture of a pitiful amount of money to continue is most certainly anti-science. While we obviously cannot fund every odd idea that is presented, stem-cell research has such wide support that it is difficult to ignore.

So after years embryonic stem cells have finally managed to accomplish something before destabilizing into a metastasizing cancer. And it didn't even take US taxpayer dollars to do it.

Well with no funding and only access to degrading stem cell lines it isn't a surprise. I'm not saying that anything would have necessarily come out of it anyway, just that it you are certainly not giving it a fair chance.

I am absolutely pro-stem cell research from a moral perspective as long as the embryo/fetus/baby/adult is not harmed in the course of said research.

Huh? So you would carefully extract the stem cells without harming it and then...the embryo would be thrown away? Something's not right here...

 

[Morm]

As I understand it, and this is by no means my expertise, the adult stem cells are organ and tissue specific. So a liver stem cell in an adult, for example, can only become parts of the liver. In embryonic stem cells, it's effectively a clean slate and the rules for manipulation and growth are thrown right out the window as far as imposed restrictions by source of derivation.

I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong on that.

Edit: it appears I was correct, as per the source that Jrrrr provided. Thanks!

I agree that this is a purely idealogocial war that is being waged. I'd love to shove the true power of stem cells down the throats of all the naysayers, but this will be a game of move goalposts (as it always is) by their side. Oh, stem cells have provided no treatments that proves it's meaningless! Oh, they have provided 1 cure and 1 treatment, that's so limited why bother!? At what point is the white flag raised by this idealogical group and they start backing up something that saves lives, rather than clinging on to antiquated ideaologies?

 

[Ancien Régime]

Also, let me get my market-libertarian shtick in here: Why aren't private medical companies funding this? Are they strapped for cash? Afraid of public pressure? Are their barriers to private funding of stem cell research? From what I've read about the blastocyst/one cell method, not only is it simpler than the previous method, it may well be more effective.

 

[Deck Knight]

Deck Knight, that is a pretty ignorant post to be making. The potential of stem cells is the sole reason to investigate them further, these findings just confirm the obvious in that we should be giving them funding.

No, what they confirm is you have a bias for lending large sums of taxpayer dollars to anything, anything at all that might possibly, after years of research, lead to perhaps one cure every five years. If it truly has potential for making life-saving treatments private companies would be exploring it. Adult stem cells have flourished without the assistance of Uncle Sam. Embryonic stem cells are a worthless canard that exist solely to continue the justification of destroying human embryos.

"Science" is not an end unto itself. There was a massive bioethical debate over whether to use the human tolerance data gathered by the Third Reich from their gas chambers. If you have a problem with people dying for the useless abstract of religion, why is it better if they die for the useless abstract of science.

Since the rationale behind funding them is to advance research, and the rationale behind not funding them is usually linked to some sort of faith or unfalsifiable opinion, NOT researching it DOES make it anti science. Taking the route of nonscience when the alternative is science, by definition, is anti-science because it hinders the progression of science.

Non-funding is not anti-science. If the government doesn't fund your next car purchase are they anti-automobile ownership?

The key difference, as I understand it, between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is quite stark, actually. Embryonic stem cells, from what I learn in biology classes in university, are less 'defined'. They can literally become anything that you guide them to be, whereas adult stem cells already have some of the guidance layed in so it's got less potential overall.

Adult stem cells are also infinitely more stable, which is why it has taken less time to develop treatments with them.

You do know, deck knight, that umbilical chords in infants is a legitimate source for emryonic stem cells? So your moral reasons, which I'm guessing are the main reasons here, go right out the window since you can acquire these by non-invasive and unharmful ways, considering the chord is usually just tossed anyways.

Umbillical cord cells are adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research, unless its method has changed in the past 5 years, requires the destruction of (and therefore a continuous supply mechanism for) human embryos.

 

[Relictivity]

My question for you guys - why is it going to be much harder to use Adult Stem Cells vs. Embreonic Stem Cells. The only answer I have heard is "Embreonic can be used for everything" but that is not really much of an advantage, considering that you could have people who specialize in developing certain types of stem cells. In fact, it seems to be an advantage for Adult (specialization is better) Stem Cell Research.

If embreonic stem cells can be extacted from an umbrellical cord (or adult ones, as they are perfectly fine) then that is good, but I don't think we should be "throwing away" life.

 

[Polis4rule]

Also, let me get my market-libertarian shtick in here: Why aren't private medical companies funding this? Are they strapped for cash? Afraid of public pressure? Are their barriers to private funding of stem cell research? From what I've read about the blastocyst/one cell method, not only is it simpler than the previous method, it may well be more effective.

They are funding things, but federal funding allows for more research groups to get involved, and in a lot of cases, more money for the development of such treatments.

Adult stem cells are also infinitely more stable, which is why it has taken less time to develop treatments with them.

Actually, adult stem cells still require a long amount of time for the development of new treatments, which is why you still don't see widespread usage of adult stem cells, never mind the fact that they're extremely limited and only useful for certain purposes.

And there have been ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Researchers have been able to remove one cell from an embryo and replicate it infinitely, allowing (hypothetically) an unlimited amount of stem cells to use without "killing" embryos. Problem is that the process currently only replicating small amounts and is somewhat expensive.

My question for you guys - why is it going to be much harder to use Adult Stem Cells vs. Embreonic Stem Cells. The only answer I have heard is "Embreonic can be used for everything" but that is not really much of an advantage, considering that you could have people who specialize in developing certain types of stem cells. In fact, it seems to be an advantage for Adult (specialization is better) Stem Cell Research.

Neither are used to their full potential due to lack of research for either or. Besides, adult stem cells are very limited, and even in the research done on them, they can't do everything that embryonic stem cells can (such as creating viable repair for spinal cord injuries and even organ repair). Adult stem cells can, in theory, do the same thing, but at a very specialized way, but this potential has yet to be proven, and the adult stem cells are the ones that have been researched upon more so than the embryonic stem cells. Still, one can only get adult stem cells in certain organs as well; there are no brain adult stem cells, and neither are there any for the spinal cord. Heart stem cells have shown some hope, but a lot more research is needed.

 

[TAY]

My question for you guys - why is it going to be much harder to use Adult Stem Cells vs. Embreonic Stem Cells. The only answer I have heard is "Embreonic can be used for everything" but that is not really much of an advantage, considering that you could have people who specialize in developing certain types of stem cells. In fact, it seems to be an advantage for Adult (specialization is better) Stem Cell Research.

If embreonic stem cells can be extacted from an umbrellical cord (or adult ones, as they are perfectly fine) then that is good, but I don't think we should be "throwing away" life.

I posted a snippet from the wikipedia article on stem cell lines several posts back:

Adult stem cell lines isolated from mature tissues are commonly used in stem cell research, as are cells isolated from umbilical cord blood. However, these cells have a genetic imprint of the host they were taken from, thus limiting their therapeutic use in genetic disorders. Also, adult stem cells are not totipotent or pluripotent like embryonic stem cells, but rather more specialized cells that are multipotent.

 

[Morm]

No, what they confirm is you have a bias for lending large sums of taxpayer dollars to anything, anything at all that might possibly, after years of research, lead to perhaps one cure every five years.

So deck knight, your assertion is that only things that are confirmed to give results should be given funding? You do know that in order to get the results you generally need to give funding, right? By the way, I don't give a rats ass where the funding comes from, just that it comes Deck Knight. And, hypothetically, lets say it cures one form of cancer every 5 years. Would it be worth it then?

"Science" is not an end unto itself. There was a massive bioethical debate over whether to use the human tolerance data gathered by the Third Reich from their gas chambers. If you have a problem with people dying for the useless abstract of religion, why is it better if they die for the useless abstract of science.

I would say unwaiveringly to use that data. Not only is it retarded not to, but having those people die in vain when their deaths can mean something is just stupid. The difference between deaths for religion and deaths for medical science should be pretty obvious...religion hasn't progressed much in how many thousands of years? Science takes that data and synthesizes new ideas which lead to things like, for example, cures to polio. I can't believe you even tried to make that arguement; one is killing for ideaology, the other is trying to prevent future deaths within humanity.

Non-funding is not non-science. If the government doesn't fund your next car purchase are they anti-automobile ownership?

Non-sequitor. Science has no means of funding itself as a general rule, simply because of the nature of it. You, on the other hand, can fund yourself right into getting your own damn car. Your arguement is comparing a private vehicle to public information, not to mention the fact that the car isn't likely to be curing blindness ever. So, not funding science which is pretty dependant on things like grants, is preventing science. Anti-science can pretty much be defined as 'preventing science'.

Adult stem cells are also infinitely more stable, which is why it has taken less time to develop treatments with them.

Quantity over quality is the arguement here, and when it comes to medicine I'd suggest that quality be given precident over quantity on the research end, because that will actually hasten the results.

Umbillical cord cells are adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research, unless its method has changed in the past 5 years, requires the destruction of (and therefore a continuous supply mechanism for) human embryos.

Oh? Cool, I was under the impression they were embryonic ones. Well, by all means ignore the link provided to you by Ancien Regime and continue to think that you have to slaughter millions to get stem cells (I'm assuming you wrote this as he was posting his though, so no harm no foul there).

 

[Relictivity]

I posted a snippet from the wikipedia article on stem cell lines several posts back:

Yet this specialization to person reduces the chance that their body will reject the tissues. Couldn't we take uncorrupted eye tissue in the case of a blind person (blindness does not effect the whole eye), and use adult stem cell research to create new eye tissue for him? Because if so, there would be no need to kill an embreo for curing his blindness.

 

[Polis4rule]

Yet this specialization to person reduces the chance that their body will reject the tissues. Couldn't we take uncorrupted eye tissue in the case of a blind person (blindness does not effect the whole eye), and use adult stem cell research to create new eye tissue for him? Because if so, there would be no need to kill an embreo for curing his blindness.

As far as I know, there currently is no found "eye adult stem cell," but theoretically, one could do exactly this. I know that researchers have been able to reconstruct a heart using adult heart stem cells, but that was a rat's heart, and what they did was essentially wipe clean the heart and leave only the structure behind before applying the adult stem cells.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

No, what they confirm is you have a bias for lending large sums of taxpayer dollars to anything, anything at all that might possibly, after years of research, lead to perhaps one cure every five years. If it truly has potential for making life-saving treatments private companies would be exploring it. Adult stem cells have flourished without the assistance of Uncle Sam. Embryonic stem cells are a worthless canard that exist solely to continue the justification of destroying human embryos.

This cure alone is going to help cure the over 14 million cases of AMD in Europe alone. If future stem cell breakthroughs have even 1/1000th of that impact, I would gladly support funding the research. Maybe the private sector in the US decided to not pick up these cures because there was no governmental incentive to do so? Why spend time and money curing Parkinson's when you can make tons of money just treating the symptoms using already existing medicines?

Non-funding is not anti-science. If the government doesn't fund your next car purchase are they anti-automobile ownership?

Well, if the government didn't fund your car and then publicly stated that owning a car was an immoral abomination despite how many millions of lives you could save with it, yes that would mean that they are anti-automobile ownership. Not only did the government refuse to fund these groundbreaking advances in science, they utterly condemned them and made sure that America never saw the benefits of the research. THAT is the anti-science part.