NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, like so many issues, this is an issue that many people with really strong feelings are completely uninformed on. This being my area, I am very willing to answer any questions someone might have on it.

There is already a debate thread on this subject, so let's not turn this into a debate. However, if you have questions, feel free to ask them.

A few preliminaries:

Stem cells are cells with a high proliferative potential (they must be able to self-renew) which can differentiate into other cell types. They come in many varieties and come from many different sources, all with their own potential uses.

Embryonic stem cells - come from the blastocyst before differentiated cells of any type form. These do not ever come from aborted tissue, although they can be derived from the leftover embryos in in-vitro fertilzation. Recent research also shows that they can be derived from what is known as therapeutic cloning (in some mammals. This has not yet been successfully documented in humans, but many are working on it), in which the nucleus of an adult cell is moved into an egg, the egg is given an electrical shock which causes it to start dividing, and the cells are removed at the blastocyst stage. These cells are pluripotent, that is, they can develop into any type of adult human cell, from any of the three germ layers. They are also highly proliferative, and we seem to be able to have them in culture indefinitely without differentiation (so we can get lots and lots of cells). Because cell culture techniques all used animal products when the current cell lines were derived and a mouse feeder layer of cells have been used in culture, most of these lines are contaminated with animal products (and thus can never be used in humans). All of them have been grown in high oxygen conditions, which recent research shows can cause a higher rate of genetic mutation (another reason none of the current lines can be used in humans).

*Note* Newer techniques being worked on include taking a single-cell at the 8-cell stage - something that has been successfully carried out in mouse embryos without destroying the embryo and cloning of an embryo in which genetic alterations are made such that the embryo would never, even if implanted, develop into a functioning organism.

Fetal stem cells - come from a fetus. These are rarely, if ever, used in human research as there is no really ethical way to obtain the tissue (tissue from abortions is usually destroyed too much to get cells). These cells are either pluripotent (can become every type of adult human cell) or multipotent (can become several types of human cells - generally all from the same germ layer). They are only pluripotent if derived from a pre-gonadal fetus. Less proliferative potential than ES cells. In most research, these are referred to as adult stem cells.

Umbilical cord stem cells - come from an umbiliical cord. These are similar to post-gonadal fetal or adult stem cells. In most research, these are referred to as adult stem cells.

Adult stem cells (by adult here, we mean fully developed human. Even a neonate or late term fetus only has adult stem cells) - there are all categories here. I will name a few.

-Hematopoetic stem cells - reside in the bone marrow and reconstitute all of your blood cells. These are thus multipotent. They cannot be cultured for long without differentiation, so the number of cells available is small. They are also only useful when you wish to replenish blood cells. Technically, a bone marrow transplant is generally used to replace these cells - so it is a stem cell therapy.

-Mesenchymal stem cells - reconstitute connective tissue cells (bone, fat, cartilage) and possibly muscle. These can be derived from bone marrow as well. These are multipotent as well and can be used in some applications. However, cell number is limited, as they differentiate quickly in culture. Evidence shows that, even in normal replication, they may create one stem cell and one differentiated cell each time.

-Unipotent stem cells - these are resident cells in different organs of your body which are there only to replenish a single cell type. Examples are satelite cells in your muscle. They have some, but very little plasticity.

-Olfactory stem cells - these replenish your olfactory sensory cells. There is some evidence that we may be able to derive other types of neurons (although none thus far for dopamine-producing cells - the cells that would help Parkinson's patients) and glial cells or astrocytes (neural "helper cells").

What I know about regulation:
US - no cell research yet federally banned (although some are trying). Federal money can only be used for a list of approved embryonic stem cell lines, most of which are private and hard to get access to, all of which have been cultured in poor conditions, none of which can be used in humans.
California Proposition 71 will give quite a bit of money and are getting a quick start. Several other states have followed suit or have legislation on the table, often because they are worried about losing scientists to Cali. (although not with nearly as much money).
South Dakota has outright banned all embryonic stem cell research. GA recently tried to ban therapeutic cloning, but changed it to reproductive. Other states have proposed similar laws.

UK - no stem cell research banned that I know of. To create embryonic stem cell lines, researchers need a special license. Only one has been given out thus far.

The rest of Europe - I am not familiar with the rules.

Korea - Pretty much anything goes.



Ok, that is a (not-so) brief introduction. Feel free to ask any questions - especially if I slipped up and used a technical term you don't know. Those of you who are more technically oriented, if you know of a paper that contradicts anything I've said here, please bring that up as well. We're constantly learning here in science.


Edit: Forgot an important part. Embryonic stem cells, with their high proliferative capacity, the fact that they are pluripotent, and their ability to migrate are *incredibly* useful in cancer studies, as well as studies for cell therapies. These cells share many common processes with cancer cells and if we can figure out how the stem cells turn these processes off, we may be able to use that in treating cancer.

Thankyou. It's all been written individually before, but this is the first place on NS where each derivative stem cell has been listed in one place. This could at least go some way to clearing up some of the ludicrous misconceptions that are bantered about. Of course, it may also mean that no-one posts here because they have nothing to say, in which case this thread will sink into obscurity. But kudos!

The doctors come with sharp knives to steal the little unborn babies' stems. The innocent babies scream but the doctors take their stems anyway. This makes baby Jesus cry.

anyone else see Richard & Judy yesterday? (yeah i'm a student... i get to watch daytime TV:D)

they had the story of a woman who became fully blind after an asthma attack in a nightclub 4 years ago. she would never get to see her baby girl (she was pregnant at the time).
using a layer of stem cells just placed over her eyes and held in place using a biological bandage, she regained near full vision in just a matter of weeks. the stem cells literally healed her eyes in a way modern medicine was helpless to do.

this is evidence enough to me that stem cell research and use should be freely allowed

anyone else see Richard & Judy yesterday? (yeah i'm a student... i get to watch daytime TV:D)

they had the story of a woman who became fully blind after an asthma attack in a nightclub 4 years ago. she would never get to see her baby girl (she was pregnant at the time).
using a layer of stem cells just placed over her eyes and held in place using a biological bandage, she regained near full vision in just a matter of weeks. the stem cells literally healed her eyes in a way modern medicine was helpless to do.

this is evidence enough to me that stem cell research and use should be freely allowed

Well if you can put stem cells on my stumps and regrow my arms and legs, I'll believe it.

anyone else see Richard & Judy yesterday? (yeah i'm a student... i get to watch daytime TV:D)

they had the story of a woman who became fully blind after an asthma attack in a nightclub 4 years ago. she would never get to see her baby girl (she was pregnant at the time).
using a layer of stem cells just placed over her eyes and held in place using a biological bandage, she regained near full vision in just a matter of weeks. the stem cells literally healed her eyes in a way modern medicine was helpless to do.

this is evidence enough to me that stem cell research and use should be freely allowed

Nonsense. Only Jesus and his devoted followers should have the true power to heal the sick and make the blind see. All others are servants of the Evil One and should be stoned or burned.

either i've lost my sense of humour tonight, or i'm beginning to see why so many people leave these forums...

Well if you can put stem cells on my stumps and regrow my arms and legs, I'll believe it.
You don't have arms or legs? How are you typing stuff then?

anyone else see Richard & Judy yesterday? (yeah i'm a student... i get to watch daytime TV:D)

they had the story of a woman who became fully blind after an asthma attack in a nightclub 4 years ago. she would never get to see her baby girl (she was pregnant at the time).
using a layer of stem cells just placed over her eyes and held in place using a biological bandage, she regained near full vision in just a matter of weeks. the stem cells literally healed her eyes in a way modern medicine was helpless to do.

this is evidence enough to me that stem cell research and use should be freely allowed

(a) What is Richard and Judy?

(b) Did they say what type of stem cells they were using?

Very informative. I'm pro-stem cell research myself, but this information is good to have. I wasn't aware that cloning would be so helpful in stem cell research... I guess it's all the more reason to divide church and state.

(a) What is Richard and Judy?

(b) Did they say what type of stem cells they were using?
Richard & Judy is a daytime TV chat/magazine show in the UK. its pretty dumbed-down stuff, so no they didn't say what type of stem cells they used. but they did show video of the operation and of her eyes before and after.
its also worth noting that a) this has been tried on over 100 (if i remember correctly) patients so far, b) the success rate is about 70%, and c) the quality of the vision after the procedure varies. this particular patient responded very well to it & reagined near full vision - good enough to drive

either i've lost my sense of humour tonight, or i'm beginning to see why so many people leave these forums...

You've lost your sense of humour; I was speaking ironically.

Richard & Judy is a daytime TV chat/magazine show in the UK. its pretty dumbed-down stuff, so no they didn't say what type of stem cells they used. but they did show video of the operation and of her eyes before and after.
its also worth noting that a) this has been tried on over 100 (if i remember correctly) patients so far, b) the success rate is about 70%, and c) the quality of the vision after the procedure varies. this particular patient responded very well to it & reagined near full vision - good enough to drive
It would have to be a form of stem cell that could form a neurone, so probably (looks at the top of the page) an umbilical one.

either i've lost my sense of humour tonight, or i'm beginning to see why so many people leave these forums...
Humour is a tool of Satan too prevert your childrens minds.

On a different note, thank you Dempublicants for making a thread like this.

You don't have arms or legs? How are you typing stuff then?
Have you ever heard of the board game 'Busy busy Bumblebees' - each player had this projection on their head with a bee on the end. I imagine it would be like that. But without the bee, obviously.

You don't have arms or legs? How are you typing stuff then?


Artificial means, or I could use my dookey, but I usually hit more then one button.

You've lost your sense of humour; I was speaking ironically.
sorry. i have lost my sense of humour. it was partly both Johnny Wadd's and your posts, but mostly other threads tonight that have completely drained me of any joy or optimism for this world.

and its never too late to say it. nice on Dempublicants on the info & thead:)

It would have to be a form of stem cell that could form a neurone, so probably (looks at the top of the page) an umbilical one.

The cells above are hardly an exhastive list. Also, to my knowledge, umbilical cord cells haven't been differentiated into neurons (I'm not as familiar with this source, so I could be wrong).

There have only been a few attempted clinical uses of stem cells not derived from the patient themselves - I'll see if I can dig up anything on this procedure.

Edit: Looks like they are using corneal stem cells, if this procedure is the same:

http://www.wangvisioninstitute.com/Msnbc_7.03.htm

http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/adultstemsuccess.htm
(not really an unbiased site, but cites the study

The cells above are hardly an exhastive list. Also, to my knowledge, umbilical cord cells haven't been differentiated into neurons (I'm not as familiar with this source, so I could be wrong).

There have only been a few attempted clinical uses of stem cells not derived from the patient themselves - I'll see if I can dig up anything on this procedure.

Edit: Looks like they are using corneal stem cells, if this procedure is the same:

http://www.wangvisioninstitute.com/Msnbc_7.03.htm

http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/adultstemsuccess.htm
(not really an unbiased site, but cites the study
*reads first article*

Lol @ Dr. Wang :p

Seriously though, I didn't know there were stem cells in the cornea. I suppose they are an example of those unipotent stem cells you mentioned. Although if you have unipotent stem cells in the cornea, why don't they automatically correct for damage to the cornea?

*reads first article*

Lol @ Dr. Wang :p

Seriously though, I didn't know there were stem cells in the cornea. I suppose they are an example of those unipotent stem cells you mentioned. Although if you have unipotent stem cells in the cornea, why don't they automatically correct for damage to the cornea?

If the damage to the cornea kills off your own stem cells as well, or kills so much of the cornea that they are unable to repair it, or if you have a defect resulting in less cells being present in the first place, they may not be able to fix the damage. Any stem cells that are there probably do what they can, but with enough damage, you will get more vascularization than normal healing (which can lead to blindness in the eye). Unipotent stem cells also tend to lose potency and numbers with age, so an older population may have trouble with healing.

I don't know much about corneal stem cells, but muscle stem cells definitely lose potency with age, and most tissues have what we call a "critical defect" size which cannot be healed without intervention.

<snip>
Thankyou for clearing that up. And still lol at Dr. Wang.

Thankyou for clearing that up. And still lol at Dr. Wang.

=) There are two people named Dr. Wang just in the Bioengineering Dept. at GA Tech - I'm used to seeing it by now. =)

Edit: By the way, if anyone is interested, I added a little extra info to the first post.

this is evidence enough to me that stem cell research and use should be freely allowed
There is no stem cell research banned in the US. certain types are cut off from federal funding, but not banned.

There is no stem cell research banned in the US. certain types are cut off from federal funding, but not banned.

New Jersey (I think - it was one of the smaller NE states) introduced a law that would ban *all* stem cell research in their state. Never did hear how it turned out, which means it probably didn't pass. But there certainly have been attempts at an all out ban.

Interestingly enough, human reproductive cloning is perfectly legal in this country. Why? Certain political factions will not allow a law banning cloning to pass unless it bans therapeutic cloning (a part of stem cell research) as well as reproductive. As such, no anti-cloning bill has yet made it into US law.

There is no stem cell research banned in the US. certain types are cut off from federal funding, but not banned.
PM is from the UK - I think that embryonic and foetal stem cell research are banned in the UK.

PM is from the UK - I think that embryonic and foetal stem cell research are banned in the UK.

The UK allows embryonic stem cell research. I believe to create a new line, you need a license - and they recently gave out the first one.

Questions?

Questions?
Yeah- I've talked to people who've said that there is no reliable evidence that stem cells from embryos provide any benefits more substantial that those already offered by adult cells and that their 'unethical' nature makes them both pointless and evil because they kill babies.

I'd like to know if any lacking of promise for embryonic stem cells is actually because they are less usefull than adult cells- or if this comparative 'lack' has more to do with the controversey and the government's hesistance to provide funds...

Thanks for the info

Yeah- I've talked to people who've said that there is no reliable evidence that stem cells from embryos provide any benefits more substantial that those already offered by adult cells and that their 'unethical' nature makes them both pointless and evil because they kill babies.

I'd like to know if any lacking of promise for embryonic stem cells is actually because they are less usefull than adult cells- or if this comparative 'lack' has more to do with the controversey and the government's hesistance to provide funds...

Thanks for the info

Well, that boils down to an opinion question, doesn't it?

We have been able to obtain cell types (like certain neurons) from embryonic stem cells that we have not yet been able to attain from any adult stem cell source. This alone is evidence that they may be more beneficial in some therapies. There is also the very real fact that they have a much, much higher proliferative capacity. ES cells can proliferate indefinitely - adult stem cells cannot. However, research in ES cells is pretty new in the scheme of things, so very few studies have yet moved into clinical trials - and those that might are somewhat held up by the lack of funding for the research. In the end, ES cells are most likely only going to be used in clinical areas that we have no other cell source.

Personally, I think that the hold-up on clinical uses for ES cells is two-fold. Part of it is simply that it is a newer area and we haven't had as much time to spend on it yet. Part of it is funding hold-ups. Like I pointed out before, none of the currently approved cell lines can be used in humans.

There is also the point that ES cells are one of the best types of cells we have to study the mechanisms behind cancer. And adult stem cells will not serve that purpose. The mechanisms involved in adult stem cells are very different than those in ES cells.

Edit: In the end, the statement "Adult stem cells already work for some things, so we shouldn't research ES cells" sounds no different to me than "We already have penicillin and it works on some infections, so we shouldn't look for any other drugs."

Well if you can put stem cells on my stumps and regrow my arms and legs, I'll believe it.

What will you tell you children's children when they ask you where the world has gone?

I don't think you even think about it.

A lie, a liar, a lie, a liar. Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. Lost in your own words.

P.S.

Great post, Dempubliscents.

Great post, Dempubliscents.

Thanks!

Made a correction to first post - totipotent is not a word that applies to ES cells, pluripotent is actually the correct word and refers to a cell that can differentiate into cells from all three germ layers (endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm). Multipotent cells (many adult stem cells) are generally lineage restricted to a single germ layer.

I fail. I should have spotted that, I'dbeen revising pre and post natal development all of yesterday.

You don't have arms or legs? How are you typing stuff then?
I've gotten the impression from other posts that he uses his bifurcated trouser snake to punch the keys with ... formidable dexterity, prehensile and all. Could be a rumour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed Bookworms
There is no stem cell research banned in the US. certain types are cut off from federal funding, but not banned.

New Jersey (I think - it was one of the smaller NE states) introduced a law that would ban *all* stem cell research in their state. Never did hear how it turned out, which means it probably didn't pass. But there certainly have been attempts at an all out ban.

Interestingly enough, human reproductive cloning is perfectly legal in this country. Why? Certain political factions will not allow a law banning cloning to pass unless it bans therapeutic cloning (a part of stem cell research) as well as reproductive. As such, no anti-cloning bill has yet made it into US law.
Bush himself personally petitioned in Puerto Rico, if i remember correctly, this past summer, to call an end to stem cell research. Didn't get much media coverage but it did indeed happen at a summit there.

FROM RBM ONLINE ARCHIVE

In 2003, a motion to prevent cloning worldwide was proposed to the UN by a Catholic country, Puerto Rico, and supported by the USA among other nations. A single vote led to the suspension of the motion for further discussions, in view of hesitations or opposition from Moslem and other nations. Proponents threatened to renew their motion in 2004, which led to numerous submissions from many governments and organizations on the pros and cons of the proposed motion. Strenuous objections were received from leading scientific and medical organizations in many countries. Objectors included the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Proponents included President Bush who recently addressed the UN, demanding that the total moratorium on all forms of cloning and human embryo stem cells must be accepted since these advances in reproductive biomedicine affronted human dignity.
It must be rare for such a conflict to arise between a country’s president and its most senior scientific institution. In late November 2004, and despite immense pressure and support from the Vatican and many Catholic countries, the motion was thrown out, perhaps for ever, killed by ‘frantic campaigning by such organizations as the Genetics Policy Institute that led to around half the member countries in UN rejecting the American way’ (Ahuja, 2004). The US dropped its ambitions to introduce strict rules on prevention since the UN was split down the middle and any showdown would be futile. The motion has become now a watered-down ‘declaration’ that is seemingly not a treaty, is non-binding on member countries and is a triumph for nations determined to pursue good biomedicine. Credit goes to Belgium especially for pushing three alternatives and Italy for designing the compromise resolution. Britain’s system of domestic bans on reproductive cloning and acceptance of therapeutic cloning offered a model that may prove attractive to other member nations.

Good post, btw, Dempublicants. *bows*

Resurrected because I have seen more people posting unaware of the proper definitions.

The cells above are hardly an exhastive list. Also, to my knowledge, umbilical cord cells haven't been differentiated into neurons (I'm not as familiar with this source, so I could be wrong).

There have only been a few attempted clinical uses of stem cells not derived from the patient themselves - I'll see if I can dig up anything on this procedure.

Edit: Looks like they are using corneal stem cells, if this procedure is the same:

http://www.wangvisioninstitute.com/Msnbc_7.03.htm

http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/adultstemsuccess.htm
(not really an unbiased site, but cites the study

Centre for Sight seems to think you are correct:

"This work was performed wholly within the NHS and involved the use of Adult stem cells derived from the eye".

http://www.centreforsight.com/news/news.php#20050429132425

Resurrected because I have seen more people posting unaware of the proper definitions.
An unfortunate and all-too-common case *sigh*.
Thanks for posting it!

Misconceptions mentioned in the IVF debate.

Bumped since the debate has apparently come around again. For or against, both sides should be aware of the facts.

Bumped to inform the uninformed.

Bumped for the uninformed.

Stemcells you little stemcells..lalalalala

The topic has come around yet again so......

BUMP.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell/index.htm

This is the United States conference of Catholic Bishop response to the stem cell question.

I think it gives a pretty comprehensive overview of the Church's position on the morality of different types of stem cell research (from embryos, therapeutic cloning, adult, and umbilical cord stem cells).

Some of the points they make are better than others. They cover the really fundamental issues (like the destruction of life), as well as more secondary issues (they make claims about the usefulness of embryonic stem cells).
Obviously it's from the point of view of people who think the practice is morally wrong, so the data they choose will lean that way, but anybody writing on the issue will have their biases.

If you're going to read it, I recommend reading most or all of the links so you can get a good overall view of the Church stance.

Well, that boils down to an opinion question, doesn't it?

We have been able to obtain cell types (like certain neurons) from embryonic stem cells that we have not yet been able to attain from any adult stem cell source. This alone is evidence that they may be more beneficial in some therapies. There is also the very real fact that they have a much, much higher proliferative capacity. ES cells can proliferate indefinitely - adult stem cells cannot. However, research in ES cells is pretty new in the scheme of things, so very few studies have yet moved into clinical trials - and those that might are somewhat held up by the lack of funding for the research. In the end, ES cells are most likely only going to be used in clinical areas that we have no other cell source.

Personally, I think that the hold-up on clinical uses for ES cells is two-fold. Part of it is simply that it is a newer area and we haven't had as much time to spend on it yet. Part of it is funding hold-ups. Like I pointed out before, none of the currently approved cell lines can be used in humans.

There is also the point that ES cells are one of the best types of cells we have to study the mechanisms behind cancer. And adult stem cells will not serve that purpose. The mechanisms involved in adult stem cells are very different than those in ES cells.

Edit: In the end, the statement "Adult stem cells already work for some things, so we shouldn't research ES cells" sounds no different to me than "We already have penicillin and it works on some infections, so we shouldn't look for any other drugs."

From everything I have read, research into both adult and embryonic stem cells started at about the same time, and have being going on concurrently, and so far, the only breakthroughs and cures have come from adult stem cells.

(Of course, this will probably change as the research proceeds throughout this century...)

From everything I have read, research into both adult and embryonic stem cells started at about the same time, and have being going on concurrently, and so far, the only breakthroughs and cures have come from adult stem cells.

(Of course, this will probably change as the research proceeds throughout this century...)

This is actually incorrect. Various forms of adult stem cells have been studied for decades, whereas embryonic stem cells have only been isolated and studied in any depth within the last ten years. Adult stem cells have been thrust into the limelight along with embryonic stem cells, but we have been studying adult stem cells for a much longer period of time.

The hematopoetic stem cell is the most well understood, and we have been using it in therapy since the 70's (bone marrow transplants).

As for what "breakthroughs" have been made, one would expect therapies involving adult stem cells to come around first, even if both types were discovered at the same time. This is precisely because of their lack of potential. A stem cell becomes more and more difficult to control with increasing potency. For that reason, we can more easily predict the differentiation of adult stem cells, and we can begin to try and use them in therapies. However, adult stem cells will typically only differentiate into a small subset of cell types, so the areas in which they can be used will be limited.

Hey Dem, does this thread actually sit in suspension somewhere other than the archives from which you can exhume it?
You always do a pretty good job of that - and there's a few i would have if i could or material and reference.

Hey Dem, does this thread actually sit in suspension somewhere other than the archives from which you can exhume it?
You always do a pretty good job of that - and there's a few i would have if i could or material and reference.

I don't start enough threads to have it yet removed from my "threads started by...." list. If it starts getting close, I may have to repost it in another thread. =)

I don't start enough threads to have it yet removed from my "threads started by...." list. If it starts getting close, I may have to repost it in another thread. =)
Oh! Good point!
I've only looked in the archive. Apparently i wasn't trying hard enough.
:)

South Dakota has outright banned all embryonic stem cell research.

SD is looking even more attractive right now.

all SD has got is a dodgey gyser that could kill us all

*whimper*

Bumped and updated.

Bumped

You knew this was coming... =)

I'm researching stem cells right now...

*flicks hair*

...and loving it!

Thou Shalt Pay For Thy Sins!!! Microscopic Clusters Of Cells Are Clearly The Same As An Adult Human!!!!! Stem Cell Suffrage Now!!!

It appears that it is once again time to bump this. I haven't looked at it in a while, so I'll check the OP for any problems.