NationStates Jolt Archive

I couldn't help but notice a few false statments in our liberal media over the last few days regarding stem cell research, I thought I'd correct them



this morning laura Bush did not defend her husban's ban on stem cell research, she defended his ban on EMBRYONIC stem cell research

stem cell research is not illegal in American, EMBYONIC stem cell research is illegal in America

in a few weeks california voters will not be voting on wether or not to legalise stem cell research, they will be voting wether or not to legalise EMBRYONIC stem cell research

the Catholic Church does not stand opposed to stem cell research, it stands opposed to EMBRYONIC stemm cell research

I couldn't help but notice a few false statments in our liberal media over the last few days regarding stem cell research, I thought I'd correct them

this morning laura Bush did not defend her husban's ban on stem cell research, she defended his ban on EMBRYONIC stem cell research

stem cell research is not illegal in American, EMBYONIC stem cell research is illegal in America

in a few weeks california voters will not be voting on wether or not to legalise stem cell research, they will be voting wether or not to legalise EMBRYONIC stem cell research

the Catholic Church does not stand opposed to stem cell research, it stands opposed to EMBRYONIC stemm cell research

Actually, as a correction - embryonic stem cell research is not illegal in the US. However, researchers cannot get government-funded grants for any embryonic stem cell research involving the creation of new lines. Of course, since many of the lines are privately owned and all are corrupted in some way, this amounts to making it very difficult for researchers to use them.

And regardless of what California is voting on, there has been at least one state that tried to vote to ban all stem cell research.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about slant in the media, I'll explain to you how embryonic stem cell research actually works - and how very little any conservative has said about it is strictly true.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about slant in the media, I'll explain to you how embryonic stem cell research actually works - and how very little any conservative has said about it is strictly true.

fire away

It should be legal and qualify for government funding. It has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions.

fire away

For one thing, most of the lines have not been created from embryos created in the lab (I want to say none of them have - but I couldn't say for sure). The majority of the opposition out there believes scientists are growing "test-tube babies" in the lab and then brutally murdering them The embryos used were slated to be destroyed in the first place (ie. in vitro fertilization), and are used long before they have reached a stage with any real organization.

But the major thing that most people don't realize (and the media never reports) is that the embryos that most researchers want to use to obtain stem cells wouldn't even qualify as "life" to most anti-choice people. Most anti-choice proponents place the beginning of life at fertilization. In the process that many wish to study in order to obtain stem cells, there is no fertilization. In short, the DNA is removed from the egg and the nucleus of an adult cell is injected into it. The cell is then given a slight shock to make it begin dividing. When it gets to the proper stage, stem cells are removed. An interesting point is the fact that, without further intervention, this embryo would stop dividing on its own, long before reaching a viable stage.

A few months ago when all of the newspapers and TV stations were claiming that the Koreans had cloned a human being, this is what had been done. However, the news made it sound like reproductive cloning was ready to go, which was completely untrue. All it really did is increase the number of people against research that they don't really know about.

The "embryonic" stem cells in question are from eggs that have be fertilized in vitro not in utero and the eggs are originally donated by these clinics with doctor and patient consent. In other words, the majority of these eggs are removed from women or couples seeking to increase their chances of carrying a pregnancy to term. The eggs are fertilized and then transplanted back into the uterus for gestation and development. Unused eggs may be either frozen or, in many cases, simply "thrown out." These eggs were never going to be given a chance to develop into a full foetus in the first place.

The cells are harvested from the blastocyst, a hollow ball of pluripotent stem cells which will eventually form the blastula, at about 4 to 5 days after fertilization. That's litterally all it is, a hollow ball of cells that have the potential to differentiate into any and every cell type. The stem cells are taken from the inner cell mass, a group of about 30 cells at one end of the blastocyst, and then cultured in growth medium. Inner cell mass cells that have been cultured on medium for six months and retain their pluripotency are the embryonic stem cell lines in question.

Embryonic stem cells posses many different advantages over adult stem cells. First, they are relatively easier to grow in culture while retaining their pluripotency. This is not true of adult stem cells. Second, they are more easily accessible than adult stem cells. Third, they remain truly pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into any type of cell in the human body. Adult stem cells are locked in to differentiating into the tissue types from which they come (although there may be some plasticity to them). Adult stem cells do possess one theoretical advantage over embryonic stem cells, in that they would potentially avoid any risk of transplantation rejection, while it is unsure if a recipent would reject donor embryonic stem cells or tissues cultured from them.

The fact is, these embryonic stem cells were going into the trash anyway. Why is there a problem? Use them to help others. Anything else is just plain silly.

Good post Berk!


Adult stem cells do possess one theoretical advantage over embryonic stem cells, in that they would potentially avoid any risk of transplantation rejection, while it is unsure if a recipent would reject donor embryonic stem cells or tissues cultured from them.

Of course, if people were able to further study nuclear cell transfer (or therapeutic cloning) like the Korean team, this advantage would no longer exist. This would be due to the fact that these cells would, in fact, have the same DNA as the recipient.

The fact is, these embryonic stem cells were going into the trash anyway. Why is there a problem? Use them to help others. Anything else is just plain silly.

I wholeheartedly agree.