Stem cell researc to go forward in the US, Bush promises to veto..

[Eran of Arcadia]

I am very religious, I believe that humans are possessed of a soul, and I believe that embryos are only potential humans, more so than gametes but not yet human (as I believe fetuses are, as they have brain activity). I do recognize the ethical quandary here, but I have to say that the benefits justify the cost.

 

[El_Machinae]

I have a proposition to ESCR supports. Show the proof that ESC are better than ASC and what diseases they have been allowed to study on humans. You need to be able to show that there is more benefit in ESCR than ASCR.

Before you get a bunch of replies to your new line of questioning, would you like to comment on whether I successfully met your challenge? It's not fun trying to debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge legitimate points.

 

[classical_hero]

Quoted for truthery

As an aside a number of ASC researchers are suggesting that ASC no longer be termed Stem Cells because they are not true stem cells as they are only multipotent.

Lets define terms shall we. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells#Potency
Totipotent stem cells are produced from the fusion of an egg and sperm cell. Cells produced by the first few divisions of the fertilized egg cell are also totipotent. These cells can differentiate into embryonic and extraembryonic cell types.

Pluripotent stem cells are the descendants of totipotent cells and can differentiate into cells derived from the three germ layers.

Multipotent stem cells can produce only cells of a closely related family of cells (e.g. hematopoeietic stem cells differentiate into red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets etc.).

Unipotent cells can produce only one cell type, but have the property of self-renewal which distinguishes them from non-stem cells.

But there has been research that shows that there are pluripotent ASC, such as this. http://www.gu.edu.au/er/development/content_icmt_adultstem.html

New research at the Eskitis Institute for Cell and Molecular Therapies, Griffith University shows that adult stem cells from the human nose are able to give rise to new brain cells, liver cells, heart cells, kidney cells and muscle cells.

In contrast to embryonic stem cells, which are thought to be able to give rise to all cell types in the body, adult stem cells are often argued to have lesser abilities. It is thought that the stem cells in tissue that regenerate, like the skin and blood and olfactory mucosa, can only give rise to the cells in that tissue, like skin and blood and olfactory mucosa. It is often argued that adult stem cells would not be as useful as embryonic stem cells for stem cell therapies. This new research turns this argument on its head.

This recently published research paper, which has drawn reaction from around the world, describes adult stem cells isolated from the olfactory mucosa, the sense organ of smell. Representing four years of work by a team led by Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, the paper demonstrates that these adult stem cells have similar abilities to embryonic stem cells in being able to turn into many different cells types, not just the cells of the sense of smell.

The stem cells from the human nose were able to give rise to new nerve cells, glial cells, liver cells, heart cells and muscle cells when growing in a dish. They gave rise to new heart, liver, kidney, brain, limb, and many other tissues when transplanted into a developing chick embryo. Stem cells from the rat nose also gave rise to new blood cells when transplanted into rats whose bone marrow stem cells were destroyed by irradiation such as cancer patients receive. These experiments show that the adult stem cells from the nose have the ability to develop into many different cell types, not just nerve cells, if they are given the right chemical or cellular environment. In this respect they are very similar to embryonic stem cells. They are very different from embryonic stem cells in one respect, they do not seem to grow in an uncontrolled way, either in the lab dish or after transplantation. It seems that their environment in the dish or after transplantation holds a strong control on the way they develop. For this reason they might be better candidates for cell therapies because they do not seem to form tumours or teratomas.

Stem cells from the human nose are relatively easy to get and grow very well in the lab. We can multiply them from small samples into millions of cells and these cells can then be directed to turn into different types of cells. These attributes make them good candidates for cell transplantation therapies and tissue reconstruction. Their other big advantage over embryonic stem cells is their potential for “autologous” therapies, in which a patient’s own cells are removed from the nose, grown and multiplied in a dish and transplanted back into the same patient. This avoids all the problems of immune rejection that happen when cells or organs from a donor are transplanted into the patient. Autologous transplants are not rejected and do not required a strict regime of immune suppressing drugs to prevent rejection. Professor Mackay-Sim’s team is trialling the use of adult olfactory stem cell transplantation in animal models of Parkinson’s disease.

Stem cells from the nose will be useful in drug development. They are human stem cells and have the potential to turn into cells targetted for drug development. They can also be used for toxicology testing.

Every gift can make a difference in this ground-breaking research effort. If you would like more information on how you can support our important work, please contact the Griffith University Development Office.

It appears that the nose is a very valuable source of stem ceels that can differentiate into various kinds of cells.

 

[Dr Tiny]

That might require a paradigm change. I tend to think of any self-replenishing cell-line (that can differentiate their daughters) as a stem cell line.

We had Darwen Prockop give a lecture here in Manchester and he was discussing how a lot of the main players in the ASC field think that the term stem cell is not an entirely correct way of describing ASCs. He was suggesting that Multipotent Stromal Cells (or something similar) would be better.

eg
http://www.eb2006-online.com/pdfs/002564.PDF?PHPSESSID=f07543fef8761587d860af5e0239a3bf

edit1 - the meeting abstract I link to is simply to highlight the use of the term multipotent stromal cells (MSC). He tends to prefer using that term in his work and his is not the only lab to do so.
edit2 - note the use of the term multipotent in the name, this is to describe the potential of the cells they are derived from. it does not mean that all ASC as we currently call them are mulitpotent.

 

[El_Machinae]

Thanks for the link.

It is often argued that adult stem cells would not be as useful as embryonic stem cells for stem cell therapies. This new research turns this argument on its head.

It also turns the concept that "an embryo is special" on its head too. This just validates my statements, made months ago, that many cells in the human body have the potential to be made into an embryo - not with joinings, fusing, or anything like that - just with hormonal signalling.

Heck, you have a few kilos worth of individual potential embryos in your body right now. Billions of potential people. THIS is why there's nothing magical about a laboratory-produced embryo. Almost any cell can become one.

Edit: and what do you want to bet that this paper references ESC research papers? Could this paper even be published without foundational ESC research already being done?

 

[batteryacid]

@ Emrbyo= human or not
The question is: what makes a human human- I think that a working nerve system and clear response to the outer world is where you should draw the line - as brain-dead means really and forever dead in a medical, scientific and juridical sense (Other than coma or collapse of other organs - the brain is the only organ that cannot be replaced without killing the person(ality)) and thus the soul.
I clearly oppose the notion of church that every fertilized egg has already a soul ( I mean they prevent contraception and damn mastrubation with this argumentation despite the fact that egg and sperm cells are "being wasted" by nature all the time- clearly ridiculous point of view imo)

EDIT: - in terms of the church I must have only halve a soul as I have a twin brother

@Embryonic vs. Adult stem cells: adult stem cells have already lost some of its potential compared to embryonic ones (meaning that they cannot or are in some way hampered to form some tissues or specialised cells); noone can say today if this loss is crucial to some medical applications or not or if this difference can somehow be circumvented.

 

[classical_hero]

Okay, at the risk of replying and never (again) getting an answer...



Keep in mind that:
ASCR has been around longer
ASCR has more funding (implicit and explicit)
ASCR has more potential researchers (because religious scientists work in this field)
ASCR has more potential donors (easier to harvest ASC than get embryoes)

So, ESC is fighting with one arm tied behind its back - right?

Geron; who's been hassled by auditors, regulators, and protestors, AND had to build a funding base from the base up has delivered this:
- insulin producing cells; without surgery to the patient or donors first
http://www.geron.com/pressview.asp?id=737
(with ASC we cannot transform them yet, so we need donors (requiring a cadaver or donor))pubmed

- how about spinal cord repair?
http://www.geron.com/pressview.asp?id=714 - May 2005

Considering that were just now able to nurture blood stem cells to neural stem cells (which makes me awfully happy), I'd say the ESCR won this race. Now, to be fair, this worked with ASC too (pubmed), but the source of adult neural stem cells was wanting (though it's gotten better).

Again; with one arm tied behind its back.

Here is some work about ASCR in the field of Diabetes that predates your find.
Pubmed.
Also there is encouraging news abut SCI from ASCs and this is at human trials. And this is before ESCs even got there since this first started in 2004 and ESCs are still at the aminal stage and a human trial has not even started yet.
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200504/kt2005041818233411800.htm

 

[Rik Meleet]

It appears that the nose is a very valuable source of stem ceels that can differentiate into various kinds of cells.

It appears to me that it should not be limited to nose-cells.

Anyway, welcome back into the twentieth century, America. Wanna take bets on when the USA reaches the nineteenth century? - this is obviously sarcasm
It is kinda sad to see the backwardness of elements in the United States over and over again. Long live Religion !!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It is kinda sad to see the backwardness of elements in the United States over and over again. Long live Religion!

Hey, don't blame this on "religion" in general.

 

[ironduck]

I have a question for all ESCR supporters. Are Embryos humans or potential humans?

Why don't you answer my question in post 147?

Anyway, are we talking about a 5-day blastocyst that is used in ESC research? They consist of about 100-150 undifferentiated cells (as well as the trophoblast).

Like this:



Does that look like a human being to you? Where is the brain? Where is the cardiovascular system? Where are the bones? Where are any of the organs? It's a tiny lump of undifferentiated cells. Surely you don't consider it to be a human being from a biological perspective, or what?

Now, as for whether it has a soul is a different issue, and one that has no place in a scientific discussion. And you do wish a scientific discussion about scientific research, right?

Otherwise you can just declare it has a soul and go answer my post #147.

 

[ironduck]

The science budget (including ESC research) has been passed by the EU! There were not enough countries voting against to veto it. Poland, Austria, Malta, Slovakia, and Lithuania voted against (after massive catholic lobbying).

Note that only countries that already allow ESC research will use the funds for this purpose, it was only a decision of whether EU's science budget should generally support it or not.

 

[El_Machinae]

I didn't realise it was this soon. Last I heard, Germany was really pushing to get it squashed.

This is good news; though, until right now, I didn't realise that the EU was going to fund sciences...

 

[ironduck]

Yeah, Germany and a couple of other countries changed position at the last moment so there weren't enough countries to block the budget.

The EU has a science budget (as well as other budgets) that are distributed between member countries. The individual countries also have their own budgets of course (which are considerably larger). The reason there are EU budgets is that the EU has a number of goals as part of its core foundation, and can thereby help as supernational entity to further those goals somewhat independent of the governments in the countries. Say, if a government isn't interested in supporting something or other it may be possible to receive EU funds instead. Likewise, by offering funds to countries the EU has an easier time asking for things in return (bonus for meeting demands).

 

[batteryacid]

The science budget (including ESC research) has been passed by the EU! There were not enough countries voting against to veto it. Poland, Austria, Malta, Slovakia, and Lithuania voted against (after massive catholic lobbying).

Man, It´s time that the ÖVP (the CDU pendant in Austria) disappears from governement - It´s always the same- during the Alpbach forum and EU mettings our dear chanceller Mr. Schüssel is the great progressive Eurofriendly open to new cultures etc. type, but when it comes to voting the "we defend our christian values and our good Mozart/Lippizaner/Sissi country against evil values" attitude comes through (also the case with other issues such as marriage of homosexuals, more rights for immigrants, more integration, more fundings for kindergardens to ease women their way back to work, funding universities etc. )

 

[Samson]

The EU has a science budget (as well as other budgets) that are distributed between member countries. The individual countries also have their own budgets of course (which are considerably larger). The reason there are EU budgets is that the EU has a number of goals as part of its core foundation, and can thereby help as supernational entity to further those goals somewhat independent of the governments in the countries. Say, if a government isn't interested in supporting something or other it may be possible to receive EU funds instead. Likewise, by offering funds to countries the EU has an easier time asking for things in return (bonus for meeting demands).

What I have seen of EU funding seems to be particuly for encuraging colaboration between groups in different EU countries. Pretty good value for money it seems to me.

 

[El_Machinae]

It seems like it won't be used like the federal Canadian government uses it (we get over-taxed, and then the feds dole it back to force the provinces to conform to certain behaviours). I'd imagine that the EU will not soon get into the position where they can over-tax the local countries and then force behaviour changes through giving them their own money back.

 

[ironduck]

Samson, yeah I agree it's a positive.

El Mac, I'm not really sure what you mean.. first, over-taxation is somewhat subjective (how much tax is reasonable) - and depends largely on what is given in return. Secondly, is it a bad thing if a larger government can entice certain behaviour, as long as it's a positive one? That's a discussion of the role of a central government I reckon..

Anyway, the EU doesn't tax as such. The EU budget is actually quite small and is decided between countries (council of ministers) on a regular basis (it's actually somewhat messy the way it happens now, especially with so many countries). Member state contributions to the EU is no higher than 1.24% of GDP I think.

The directives that are passed by the EU have a much bigger impact in terms of the countries' budgets since it binds them to carry out the changes.

 

[El_Machinae]

El Mac, I'm not really sure what you mean.. first, over-taxation is somewhat subjective (how much tax is reasonable) - and depends largely on what is given in return. Secondly, is it a bad thing if a larger government can entice certain behaviour, as long as it's a positive one? That's a discussion of the role of a central government I reckon..

It's really a topic for another thread; but in Canada, the provinces are responsible for providing services (according to local mandates) and the feds are responsible for providing services. Each has the power to tax to fulfill those mandates. The feds, however, over-tax (in that they receive more money than they need to fulfill their mandate, AND there isn't enough money left over available for the provinces to fulfill their responsibilities) and then dole out money to the provinces to fulfill the province's mandates - but put restrictions on it.

For example, the feds take so much money out of the province that the province cannot tax enough to provide proper health care. Then the feds give bursaries to the provinces to provide health care, but have strings on that money. The provision of health care is supposed to be a provincial jurisdiction.

I agree that it's actually 'fine' if it provides an improvement for everyone; it's merely a problem in that Canada is supposed to have divisions of power, and the over-taxation/bursary system is an end-run around our Constitution.

Anyway, I read a news report that there would be some restrictions on the EU funding, but it sounds like the funding merely cannot be used for some specific procedures. It reads like the monies cannot be used to specifically create an ESC line, but is fully applicable to research on those lines.

 

[ironduck]

Ah, so it really is over-taxation in the technical sense. That does seem a little problematic.

My positive attitude to centralized government (or supernational) is when it ensures rights that a more local entity has less interest in protecting. For instance, a local council may not care about protecting the environment in the area because they will make more money if they don't (allowing more industry, for instance). A central or independent body is often better suited at cutting through such local interests. Similarly, the EU may protect certain programs that a single country's government may not be interested in. So when it comes to protecting the administration of laws and rights larger bodies of power can be beneficial. When they in turn wish to mess with things that are only of interest to them they become a burden (as per your example).

Anyway, I read a news report that there would be some restrictions on the EU funding, but it sounds like the funding merely cannot be used for some specific procedures. It reads like the monies cannot be used to specifically create an ESC line, but is fully applicable to research on those lines.

Yes, same old issue with the lines.. the restrictions are mentioned here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2283785,00.html - this is only concerning the specific EU funds for ESC research which are quite small. Individual countries can do as they please with their own budgets. The reason this whole thing was a big deal was that the catholic church are making themselves into a political machine and try to block the entire science budget because of one little part of it.

 

[Dr Tiny]

<snip>
But there has been research that shows that there are pluripotent ASC, such as this. http://www.gu.edu.au/er/development/content_icmt_adultstem.html

Thanks for posting the link, I had a good read of the paper over the last couple of days. The ability of the neural precursor cells isolated from the nose to differentiate is quite interesting. However, if you read the original paper carefully you will see that in order for this to happen slices of the appropriate tissue taken from new born rats were needed to induce the differentiation. In the US use of these cells in humans would be classed as xenotransplantation. There are very stringent rules in place governing xenotransplantation in the US, it affects ESC as well as they are grown on mouse feeder cells. Now I am sure in the future when we fully understand cell differentiation the use of tissue slices won't be necessary because at the moment the majority of experiments involving ESC are examining the different pathways as ESC are very ammenable to this sort of work. Therefore this work goes hand in hand with ESC research.