My Channel News

Friday, October 30th, 2009

Adult Stem Cells are Useful but Why Scientists look to Embryonic Stem Cells?

For years in order to harvest embryonic stem cells, which are believed to be one of the greatest hopes for curing any number of diseases and conditions including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and spinal injury related mobility problems, the embryo from which they were being harvested had to be destroyed as a part of the process.

This gave rise to much of the controversy about the process, especially from those who found the idea of the destruction of human embryos to be morally repugnant. In 2001 US President George Bush banned the use of embryonic stem cells in scientific experimentation, although “existing” stem lines were still available for legal use.

Large sectors of the American medical and scientific community were devastated as they felt the scope and potential of their work was now severely limited. With only a small number of existing stem cell lines still available research was curtailed to certain degree.

Although adult stem cells are useful, scientists look to embryonic stem cells to provide the best results. These are literally a blank canvas, a newly formed cell yet to be affected by outside influence that can be “programmed” to grow into any kind of cell it is directed to.  Adult stem cells have been used in research with some degree of success but they exist in very small numbers in the human body and are hard to locate. Their use is of course morally more acceptable but most scientists agree that embryonic stem cells are essential if the full potential of stem cell therapy is to be reached.

In 2008, a team of researchers from a laboratory called Advanced Cell Technology in Worchester , Mass, announced that they had found a way to create embryonic stem cell lines without destroying the embryo itself.

They took embryos that were at the very first stages of existence, the blatocyst stage, when the embryo consists of just eight cells. In the past scientists had used embryos at a later stage of development and removing the stem cell material destroyed them. In the course of their initial research the team was able to create five viable stem cell lines without harming the growing embryos.

The situation changed again in 2009 when new US President Barack Obama made reversing the embryonic stem cell ban one of his first orders of business when he took office. Science is once again able to utilize embryonic stem cells in their research although the ACT lab and numerous other research teams are still fine tuning their non destructive harvesting process.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 10:46 pm and is filed under Stem Cells. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

11 Responses to “Adult Stem Cells are Useful but Why Scientists look to Embryonic Stem Cells?”

Frank raila Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 8:04 am

Probaby more blastocysts are nbaturally aborted then could possibly be developed in the lab.

RocketTrip Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 8:38 am

An important step forward in ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH has offered hope of new medical treatments without any need to use human embryos.

This will fuel calls to reject embryo research which, after a decade of work – has failed to produce any treatments.

In this latest advance, scientists at Harvard Medical School used cells from the skin of adults suffering from diseases to produce stem cells that act like those taken from embryos.

Stem cells are the body’s ‘master’ cells, which can be grown into various kinds of body tissues. Scientists hope to use them to repair damaged tissues.

This latest breakthrough will allow researchers to gain insights into the cause of illnesses including Type 1 diabetes, Down’s syndrome and Huntington’s disease.

Researchers hope that by ‘rewinding’ the stem cells from patients with diseases to this embryonic-like state they will be able to learn more about the way the diseases develop.

Scientists around the world are increasingly moving towards non-embryonic stem cell research.

Verified accomplishments of adult (non-embryonic) stem cell research from sources such as bone marrow and umbilical cord blood are already providing hope and therapy for patients suffering from heart muscle injury, diabetes and brain damage from stroke and at least 72 conditions — with realistic promise for treating other diseases on the horizon.

Breakthroughs, like this one from Harvard, have led a number of scientists to move away from embryonic stem cell research.

The scientist behind the Harvard work, Willy Lensch, said: “This will help us understand the environmental causes that push these undefined cells to become diseases.

“We can look at what is happening to the hormones, the genes, the growth factors, and compare that to cells that don’t have the mutations – learn new things.”

Scientists also at Children’s Hospital in Oakland, California, are discovering a potential cure for leukemia and sickle-cell disease by using adult blood stem cells from the placentas of women who have had Caesarian deliveries.

But researchers at the hospital are frustrated. State agencies have made multi-million-dollar grants available for embryo-destructive research, but money is scarce for its ethically sound counterpart, adult stem cell research.

In the Contra Costa Times, lead Children’s Hospital researcher Frans Kuypers says, “No one has been cured by an embryonic stem cell. We are able to cure folks with [adult] stem cells.”

So why isn’t adult stem cell research receiving more funding? Josephine Quintavalle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, says “What you get from [the adult stem cell] approach is a patient-specific cure. There’s no middleman . . . and there’s no drug company that’s going to get rich as a result of it.”

But, she explains, a lot of the pressure for stem-cell research is to find products that they can sell, as opposed to a treatment they can do to cure you.

Toni Collins Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 9:32 am

A number of factual errors in this article. First, President George W. Bush did NOT ban the use of embryonic stem cells in scientific experimentation. He withheld federal FUNDING for experimentation on any NEW stem cell lines.

Second, adult stem cell therapies have proven to be extremely successful, while embryonic stem cell therapies have proven to be quite difficult to control. What happens when you lose control of an embryonic stem cell? You get cancer. What kind of choice is that for a patient? “We can cure your XYZ if you don’t mind getting cancer afterwards.”

Left out of the article is the fact that using someone else’s stem cells (embryonic or adult) forces you to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life, just like any other transplant patient. One of the big advantages of therapies that utilize your own adult stem cells is that your body accepts them, and no anti-rejection drugs are needed.

Med/psych Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 10:06 am

There’s something off with that 8 cell approach explanation. the “material” they take away has to be a cell, but at that stage all the cells are still totipotent and can individually still give rise to full embryos(thats how we get identical twins). Yeah you save an embryo which later can be implanted(maybe),but you make a twin and then sacrifice it.So exactly what was ACT’s big advance? Mind you I not against stem cell research of any kind,but am I missing something here or does something here need to be spelled out more clearly?

Sarah Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 11:03 am

The fertilized egg stays at the zygotic stage about four days and by day 5 is at the blastocyst stage – a hollow sphere of identical cells that have not yet differentiated into organ systems. After it travels down the fallopian tubes and implants into the uterus, it begins to form a placenta and develop into an embryo – the little creature with big eyes, tiny limbs and a little tail. Before it implants, I do not consider the group of cells a “baby.” You can keep a zygote in the lab for years and it will never develop past this stage until planted into a human uterus – the point at which God decides it will become a baby. I don’t have a problem with using these cells (mostly from fertility clinics) for human research. Stem cells can be used from other sources, but human fertilized eggs are the gold standard.

Don Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 6:07 pm

“In 2001 US President George Bush banned the use of embryonic stem cells in scientific experimentation…”

President Bush did not ban the use of embryonic stem cells; he only banned _federal funding_ of embryonic stem cell research. Even this ban was not total; he actually authorized funding of research using existing stem cell lines (so that no new embryos would be destroyed in research receiving federal funding), which no other administration had done.

The rumors of Bush’s “War on Science” are highly exaggerated.

Kathleen Heller Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 9:15 pm

You checked with God about this? Please cite your source for this statement as to when He considers the fertilized egg to be a baby…I’d like to look it up for future reference.

Dr Milton Comer Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 9:45 pm

An embryonic stem cell is a totally undifferentiated set of a few cells, no way resembling an embryo or developing human organism. It is foolish to use any other cell type to treat diseases, since nothing is really lost in the use of it. Scientists have known this for a long time, and advise the use of these stem cells for development into disease-fighting entities in preference to the adult stem cells sometimes used if they can be found and grown.

BRUCE Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 10:35 pm

REASEACHERS HAVE FOUND WAYS TO CRETAE ADULT STYEM CELLS FROM VIRTUALLY ANY ( IN GOOD NUMBERS) CELL (SEE NAGY). THE ONLY VIABLE CURRENT THERAPIES ARE USING ADULT STEM CELLS,WHICH ARE PREFERRABLE TO EMBRTONIC CELLS, SINCE THERE IS NO REJECTION OR INFECTION PROBLEMS.

Jeff Long Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 10:41 pm

<>

Adult stem cells useful? This certainly is an understatement at best. They are the ONLY ones which have shown success in living subjects. Over 70 some applications to date!

Adult stem cells are in very small numbers in the body and hard to locate? And you would tell us that an 8-cell embryo is any better? How many must be destroyed before we realize that partially differentiated adult stem cells from a host, which are furthermore less likely to be rejected by that host’s immune system, are a more viable option.

It only makes sense that going BACK to the embryonic stage is a step backward–not forward-in isolating nature’s best healing option so far as stem cells are concerned.

Now that skin cells can be chemically treated and regressed to virtual embryo status there is really no need to continue destroying 46 chromosome babies for research purposes.

Linda Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 11:39 pm

MY HUSBAND HAD TWO ADULT STEM CELL TRANSPLANTS FOR AML (LEUKEMIA) AND DOES NOT TAKE REJECTION MEDICATION.(AS STATED IN COMMENT ABOVE.) OUR FIRST GRANDCHILD WAS BORN THIS YEAR AND HIS CORD BLOOD WAS STORED IMMDIATELY.

FACE THE FACTS, PEOPLE. MILLIONS OF US WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RECEIVE AN ADULT STEM CELL TRANSPLANT BECAUSE A DONOR WON’T BE FOUND IN TIME. THE BETTER CHANCE FOR SURVIVAL IS A RELATED DONOR TRANSPLANT. THE ODDS OF MATCHING A SIBLING ARE 0NE IN FOUR. MY HUSBAND MATCHED HIS BROTHER, BUT HIS SISTER DIDN’T MATCH EITHER OF THEM. THEREFORE, HAD SHE BEEN THE PATIENT, SHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO WAIT UNTIL A DONOR WAS FOUND OR USE HER OWN (TREATED) BLOOD FOR TRANSPLANT. NEITHER IS AS EFFECTIVE AS IS A RELATED DONOR ONE.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISE HERE: 80X80 Pixels