Stem Cell Research

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Hello everyone!  I was invited to this group by abomvubuso, and I wanted to ask a question of you guys.

Do you know of somatic stem cells, and do you think that the focus of stem cell research should be primarily on somatic or embryonic?

I'd like to point out that I'm for somatic stem cell research, as it has been proven time and time again that somatic stem cells do far less damage than embryonic, and can be found in more places than embryonic (bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, skin cells, etc.).

If you require more information on somatic stem cells, here are two resources: http://adult-stem-cells.info/ and http://www.cellmedicine.com/news12.asp.

Some have condemned somatic stem cells on the basis of lessened plasticity; however, embryonic stem cells grow far too rapidly, and they have even caused tumors (look for the topic, "Claim: Even if they are more versatile than once thought, adult cells don't spontaneously create almost every type of cell as embryonic stem cells do.").

There have been more favorable results with somatic than embryonic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-bch1U7pTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMDBKKuSYmI

There does need to be stem cell research, but I believe that we should focus primarily on somatic.  Quite a few scientists still cling to embryonic stem cells as a miracle cure; the problem with embryonic stem cells is that they are either useless or harmful.

[EDIT]

Let's face it - using somatic stem cells, the scientists would get less bitching from church groups.

 
[EDIT]

I'd just like to say how nice you guys are, compared to other groups.  Seriously, kudos to you for not being hell-bent on flaming.

Comments

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

And...?

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Sorry, it's not working.

Give me a minute.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Thats better :)
Welcome!

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

Stupid LJ ...

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

kudos to you for not being hell-bent on flaming

Screw you, hippie! Just kidding, welcome to talk_politics. :P

I don't know as much as I'd like to about stem cell research. One thing about embryonic stem cells, aren't they from eggs in fertility clinics that are going to be destroyed anyway? In which case methinks they would be something put to potentially good use as opposed to flushed down a toilet.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Hippie? But ... but ... I bathe ...

Well, the link I provided at "tumors" shows that embryonic are actually harmful most of the time. This one fellow received some embryonic stem cells in order to help (or rather, cure) his Parkinson's. Long story short, they found a tumor in his head. Guess what it was filled with? Hair and bone. That was from the embryonic stem cells.

We shouldn't use embryonic stem cells *just* to use up the aborted fetuses. That's malpractice, as it does harm.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Well I don't think we should use them on people until we know more about them, as your link on the cancer problem suggests. But I think we need to use them to study them in ORDER to learn more. It could someday save lives.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Plenty (and I mean plentry) of tests have been done using embryonic. They have never helped in any way. They've either gone from harmful to useless or vice-versa. There is no future as far as embryonic stem cells go. The tests they've used embryonic stem cells in seemed to go well in the beginning; however, they quickly turned on the patient/test suject. They are a dead end.

Somatic, on the other hand, has been responsible for many recoveries for many diseases and deterioration of tissue. As I (and many people before me) always say, "Stick with what works." The somatic stem cells work, so use those in study. Don't study what fails so badly.

Also ...

(http://pics.livejournal.com/shadowyphantom/pic/0004tsde/)

[ihatepeoplealot.livejournal.com]

From your link,
"That may be exactly what happened some years ago"

The article doesn't claim that "embryonic stem cells are actually harmful most of the time."

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Hang on, I'll give you another link.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm749.cfm

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith200405130858.asp

http://www.naturalnews.com/020903.html

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/mcconchie_2004-06-16.htm

From the cases I've heard, using embryonic stem cells does not end happily for the patient/test subject. On the other hand, no tumors have been found with somatic stem cells, as they do not grow rapidly out of control. Their plasticity has been mocked by a few, but really, that's solved when you consider the amount of places somatic stem cells can be found.

[njyoder.livejournal.com]

It would be helpful to use independent, scientific sources, especially those from journals. Those clearly have a political agenda (all of them were written by people who are ethically opposed), especially the ones from the Heritage Foundation and the National Review. The Heritage Foundation even claims that there have been no "human trials," but that's obviously not the case.

The last source even acknowledges that some studies have shown improvements in animal trials and are alleging simply that no similar findings have been found since. Tumors haven't always been found.

We don't know yet what more we'll learn from embryonic stem cell research, even if we did find no benefit currently (not the case). These are the building blocks of our entire body, after all. It would be foolish to terminate it under the premature assumption that they aren't helpful, when it's a relatively new field.

There has been less research on embryonic stem cells because of a) a ban on federal funding and b) embryonic stem cells aren't as plentiful as some other sources. We are killing cells that would have died, anyway, so it seems foolish not to use them. Because of that ban, research costs essentially have doubled, because they have to buy twice the equipment, because they aren't allowed to use any equipment that was a result of federal funds.

There are issues with somatic cells:
1. If the person has a certain genetic abnormality, harvesting their own cells may only exacerbate the problem.

2. Embryonic (and cord) stem cells don't have the problem of short telomeres, which would lead to premature aging if implanted in someone younger than the donor. This is actually one of the problems that may have afflicted dolly, the cloned sheep, that lead to a premature demise.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

You don't need to get somatic stem cells from the patient him/her-self. You can get donors to donate the somatic stem cells needed.

Embryonic stem cells do have the nasty side effect of creating tumors, however. They may not create them all the time, but there is the risk of them being created.

There has been less research on embryonic stem cells because of a) a ban on federal funding and b) embryonic stem cells aren't as plentiful as some other sources.

That's why somatic stem cells should be studied.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Cord stem cells are a good alternative. I will agree with you on that.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Assuming, of course, you meant umbilical cord blood stem cells.

[casey-ann.livejournal.com]

Somatic, for sure. From everything I've seen (and from everything I know about stem cells), somatic cells have all the benefits of embryonic stem cells, but without the drawbacks (so far) of the cells trying to turn into a baby somewhere in your body. Of course, embryonic cells are far easier to get a hold of than somatic stem cells, but that's a small price to pay. Plus, no baby killing problems.

Somatic stem cells FTW!

[ihatepeoplealot.livejournal.com]

I think it should be up to scientists and patients which type of stem cell to do research on and to use in medical procedures.

Embryonic stem cells are not alive. There is no moral issue except for people with warped views on what it means for something to be alive.

You and I, as non-experts, shouldn't have any option in this matter.

That being said, the government also shouldn't be funding any type of stem cell research in the first place.
Scientists need to find their own damn money.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

We're not disputing whether or not they are alive; we're disputing the embryonic stem cells' usefulness (which is zip).

I'd rather the research be on stem cells that actually help and don't cause tumors than, "Oh, might as well use up these stem cells, since they're going to waste."

I should have an *opinion* in this matter - my tax dollars are going towards stem cell research facililties.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Besides, I blame the lack of knowledge concerning stem cells on most science teachers. In my freshman biology class, we briefly touched upon stem cells; my teacher praised embryonic stem cells, while she curiously left out somatic. I read up on somatic stem cells for my junior year report, and I found that somatic stem cells are actually better in quite a few ways.

[ihatepeoplealot.livejournal.com]

That's fine that you think somatic stem sells are "better" than embryonic, but there are legitimate scientists who want to work with embryonic stem cells, and to me it's annoying that uninvolved third parties want to impose their morals onto a professional doing objective research. It shouldn't be up to me, you, or any one except the scientist and his financiers what's relevant to do research in.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

The ones who want to work with embryonic just want to use them up, considering how they clutter up the garbage bins.

If by "morals" you mean not using embryonic stem cells as they create tumors, then I suppose I have "morals".

It should be up to taxpayers, considering we're footing the bill.

[ihatepeoplealot.livejournal.com]

Whether taxpayers should be funding stem cell research, and whether stem cell research should be doe are different discussions.

I don't think we should foot the bill.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with so much spending of taxpayers' money, but since it's being done anyway, I'd prefer it be on useful medical advancements.

I've read up on it as much as I could, and I feel that somatic is the way to go (considering the successes). That's where I'd like my money to go.

[ihatepeoplealot.livejournal.com]

I want my money going in to nanotechnology.

Although I think stem cells and nanotechnology are both the future of medicine.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Again, agreed.

[njyoder.livejournal.com]

Why should they "find their own damn money"? It makes things much more complicated without federal funding and this is for the benefit of all humanity. As far as decisions to spend money on something that would help all Americans (and the world in this case), curing major diseases is one of the most important ones. It's certainly better than the insane amount of military spending and spending in other areas.

EDIT: Why just fund nanotech and not stem cell research when you acknowledge that they are both the future of medicine?

[ihatepeoplealot.livejournal.com]

I was just saying that I'm more interested in nanotech, i'm not saying one shouldn't be funded.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I was invited to this group by abomvubuso

I see he has started to put his plan (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/1774.html?thread=19950#t19950) to practice...

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

He picked me up from libertarianism; don't ask if I was happy with the group.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

If there was a poll here for voting, then I'd have to caste my vote in favor of somatic stem cell research :S

Ever since the scandalous disaster of Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk, I've been struck by some sort of bias. So much so, that I almost frown upon advocates of embryonic stem-cell research :(

(Yes, I really did just admitted to that)

Plus, who needs embryonic stem-cells when you have feats of discovery like this one (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172631.htm)? Yee-haw! Right?

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

Exactly; defenders of embryonic stem cells simply want to find a use for all the "extra waste" that abortion clinics accumulate. I'm not condemning embryonic stem cells (in this post) because I may or may not believe that a fetus could be considered a child (as some people might assume); rather, I'm condemning them on the basis that they are either useless or harmful.

Somatic stem cells are the future, and anyone dog-shit dumb enough to put their faith in embryonic stem cells has obviously been brainwashed.

Yee-haw! Right?

Right!