StemCell Therapy

The stem cell controversy is the consideration of the ethics of research involving the development, use, and destruction of human embryos. Most commonly, this controversy focuses on embryonic stem cells. Not all stem cell research involves the human embryos. For example, adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells do not involve creating, using, or destroying human embryos, thus are minimally, if at all, controversial. Many less controversial sources of acquiring stem cells include using cells from the umbilical cord, breast milk, and bone marrow, which are not pluripotent.

For many decades, stem cells have played an important role in medical research, beginning in 1868 when Ernst Haeckel first used the phrase to describe the fertilized egg which eventually gestates into an organism. The term was later used in 1886 by William Sedgwick to describe the parts of a plant that grow and regenerate. Further work by Alexander Maximow and Leroy Stevens introduced the concept that stem cells are pluripotent, i.e. able to become many types of different cell. This significant discovery led to the first human bone marrow transplant by E. Donnal Thomas in 1968, which although successful in saving lives, has generated much controversy since. This has included the many complications inherent in stem cell transplantation (almost 200 allogeneic marrow transplants were performed in humans, with no long-term successes before the first successful treatment was made), through to more modern problems, such as how many cells are sufficient for engraftment of various types of hematopoietic stem cell transplants, whether older patients should undergo transplant therapy, and the role of irradiation-based therapies in preparation for transplantation.

The discovery of adult stem cells led scientists to develop an interest in the role of embroynic stem cells, and in separate studies in 1981 Gail Martin and Martin Evans derived pluripotent stem cells from the embryos of mice for the first time. This paved the way for Mario Capecchi, Martin Evans, and Oliver Smithies to create the first knockout mouse, ushering in a whole new era of research on human disease.

In 1998, James Thomson and Jeffrey Jones derived the first human embryonic stem cells, with even greater potential for drug discovery and therapeutic transplantation. However, the use of the technique on human embryos led to more widespread controversy as criticism of the technique now began from the wider non-scientific public who debated the moral ethics of questions concerning research involving human embryonic cells.

Since pluripotent stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell, they are used in the development of medical treatments for a wide range of conditions. Treatments that have been proposed include treatment for physical trauma, degenerative conditions, and genetic diseases (in combination with gene therapy). Yet further treatments using stem cells could potentially be developed due to their ability to repair extensive tissue damage.[1]

Great levels of success and potential have been realized from research using adult stem cells. In early 2009, the FDA approved the first human clinical trials using embryonic stem cells. These can become any cell type of the body, excluding placental cells. This ability is called pluripotency. Only cells from an embryo at the morula stage or earlier are truly totipotent, meaning that they are able to form all cell types including placental cells. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.

Many of the debates surrounding human embryonic stem cells concern issues such as what restrictions should be made on studies using these types of cells. At what point does one consider life to begin? Is it just to destroy an embryo cell if it has the potential to cure countless numbers of patients? Political leaders are debating how to regulate and fund research studies that involve the techniques used to remove the embryo cells. No clear consensus has emerged. Other recent discoveries may extinguish the need for embryonic stem cells.[2]

Much of the criticism has been a result of religious beliefs, and in the most high-profile case, Christian US President George W Bush signed an executive order banning the use of federal funding for any cell lines other than those already in existence, stating at the time, "My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs," and "I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator."[3] This ban was in part revoked by his successor Barack Obama, who stated "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly." [4]

Some stem cell researchers are working to develop techniques of isolating stem cells that are as potent as embryonic stem cells, but do not require a human embryo.

Foremost among these was the discovery in August 2006 that adult cells can be reprogrammed into a pluripotent state by the introduction of four specific transcription factors, resulting in induced pluripotent stem cells.[5] This major breakthrough won a Nobel Prize for the discoverers, Shinya Yamanaka and John Gurdon.[6]

In an alternative technique, researchers at Harvard University, led by Kevin Eggan and Savitri Marajh, have transferred the nucleus of a somatic cell into an existing embryonic stem cell, thus creating a new stem cell line.[7]

Researchers at Advanced Cell Technology, led by Robert Lanza and Travis Wahl, reported the successful derivation of a stem cell line using a process similar to preimplantation genetic diagnosis, in which a single blastomere is extracted from a blastocyst.[8] At the 2007 meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR),[9] Lanza announced that his team had succeeded in producing three new stem cell lines without destroying the parent embryos. "These are the first human embryonic cell lines in existence that didn't result from the destruction of an embryo." Lanza is currently in discussions with the National Institutes of Health to determine whether the new technique sidesteps U.S. restrictions on federal funding for ES cell research.[10]

Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University says that the fluid surrounding the fetus has been found to contain stem cells that, when used correctly, "can be differentiated towards cell types such as fat, bone, muscle, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells". The extraction of this fluid is not thought to harm the fetus in any way. He hopes "that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs, as well".[11]

The status of the human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue, as with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. Most of these embryos are discarded. Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the pro-life movement, whose members are concerned with the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life. They believe that embryonic stem cell research instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life and is tantamount to murder.[12] The fundamental assertion of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research is the belief that human life is inviolable, combined with the belief that human life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell to form a single cell. The view of those in favor is that these embryos would otherwise be discarded, and if used as stem cells, they can survive as a part of a living human being.

A portion of stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are to be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life. In the United States alone, an estimated at least 400,000 such embryos exist.[13] This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.[14] See also embryo donation.

Medical researchers widely report that stem cell research has the potential to dramatically alter approaches to understanding and treating diseases, and to alleviate suffering. In the future, most medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell research to treat a variety of diseases and impairments. Spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's disease are two examples that have been championed by high-profile media personalities (for instance, Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox, who have lived with these conditions, respectively). The anticipated medical benefits of stem cell research add urgency to the debates, which has been appealed to by proponents of embryonic stem cell research.

In August 2000, The U.S. National Institutes of Health's Guidelines stated:

...research involving human pluripotent stem cells...promises new treatments and possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards.[15]

In 2006, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Massachusetts, succeeded in obtaining stem cells from mouse embryos without destroying the embryos.[16] If this technique and its reliability are improved, it would alleviate some of the ethical concerns related to embryonic stem cell research.

Another technique announced in 2007 may also defuse the longstanding debate and controversy. Research teams in the United States and Japan have developed a simple and cost-effective method of reprogramming human skin cells to function much like embryonic stem cells by introducing artificial viruses. While extracting and cloning stem cells is complex and extremely expensive, the newly discovered method of reprogramming cells is much cheaper. However, the technique may disrupt the DNA in the new stem cells, resulting in damaged and cancerous tissue. More research will be required before noncancerous stem cells can be created.[17][18][19][20]

Update article to include 2009/2010 current stem cell usages in clinical trials.[21][22] The planned treatment trials will focus on the effects of oral lithium on neurological function in people with chronic spinal cord injury and those who have received umbilical cord blood mononuclear cell transplants to the spinal cord. The interest in these two treatments derives from recent reports indicating that umbilical cord blood stem cells may be beneficial for spinal cord injury and that lithium may promote regeneration and recovery of function after spinal cord injury. Both lithium and umbilical cord blood are widely available therapies that have long been used to treat diseases in humans.

This argument often goes hand-in-hand with the utilitarian argument, and can be presented in several forms:

This is usually presented as a counter-argument to using adult stem cells as an alternative that does not involve embryonic destruction.

This argument is used by opponents of embryonic destruction, as well as researchers specializing in adult stem cell research.

Pro-life supporters often claim that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[30] Furthermore, adult stem cell research may be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[31]

In the past, it has been a necessity to research embryonic stem cells and in doing so destroy them for research to progress.[32] As a result of the research done with both embryonic and adult stem cells, new techniques may make the necessity for embryonic cell research obsolete. Because many of the restrictions placed on stem cell research have been based on moral dilemmas surrounding the use of embryonic cells, there will likely be rapid advancement in the field as the techniques that created those issues are becoming less of a necessity.[33] Many funding and research restrictions on embryonic cell research will not impact research on IPSCs (induced pluripotent stem cells) allowing for a promising portion of the field of research to continue relatively unhindered by the ethical issues of embryonic research.[34]

Adult stem cells have provided many different therapies for illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, leukemia, multiple sclerosis, lupus, sickle-cell anemia, and heart damage[35] (to date, embryonic stem cells have also been used in treatment),[36] Moreover, there have been many advances in adult stem cell research, including a recent study where pluripotent adult stem cells were manufactured from differentiated fibroblast by the addition of specific transcription factors.[37] Newly created stem cells were developed into an embryo and were integrated into newborn mouse tissues, analogous to the properties of embryonic stem cells.

Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, and Ireland do not allow the production of embryonic stem cell lines,[38] but the creation of embryonic stem cell lines is permitted in Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[38]

In 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. Five years later, the first successful human in vitro fertilization resulted in the birth of Louise Brown in England. These developments prompted the federal government to create regulations barring the use of federal funds for research that experimented on human embryos. In 1995, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel advised the administration of President Bill Clinton to permit federal funding for research on embryos left over from in vitro fertility treatments and also recommended federal funding of research on embryos specifically created for experimentation. In response to the panel's recommendations, the Clinton administration, citing moral and ethical concerns, declined to fund research on embryos created solely for research purposes,[39] but did agree to fund research on leftover embryos created by in vitro fertility treatments. At this point, the Congress intervened and passed the Dickey Amendment in 1995 (the final bill, which included the Dickey Amendment, was signed into law by Bill Clinton) which prohibited any federal funding for the Department of Health and Human Services be used for research that resulted in the destruction of an embryo regardless of the source of that embryo.

In 1998, privately funded research led to the breakthrough discovery of human embryonic stem cells (hESC). This prompted the Clinton administration to re-examine guidelines for federal funding of embryonic research. In 1999, the president's National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that hESC harvested from embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not from embryos created expressly for experimentation, be eligible for federal funding. Though embryo destruction had been inevitable in the process of harvesting hESC in the past (this is no longer the case[40][41][42][43]), the Clinton administration had decided that it would be permissible under the Dickey Amendment to fund hESC research as long as such research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo. Therefore, HHS issued its proposed regulation concerning hESC funding in 2001. Enactment of the new guidelines was delayed by the incoming George W. Bush administration which decided to reconsider the issue.

President Bush announced, on August 9, 2001, that federal funds, for the first time, would be made available for hESC research on currently existing embryonic stem cell lines. President Bush authorized research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines, not on human embryos under a specific, unrealistic timeline in which the stem cell lines must have been developed. However, the Bush Administration chose not to permit taxpayer funding for research on hESC cell lines not currently in existence, thus limiting federal funding to research in which "the life-and-death decision has already been made".[44] The Bush Administration's guidelines differ from the Clinton Administration guidelines which did not distinguish between currently existing and not-yet-existing hESC. Both the Bush and Clinton guidelines agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research that directly destroys embryos.

Neither Congress nor any administration has ever prohibited private funding of embryonic research. Public and private funding of research on adult and cord blood stem cells is unrestricted.

In April 2004, 206 members of Congress signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported.

In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238194 to loosen the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell researchby allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donorsdespite Bush's promise to veto the bill if passed.[45] On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too favored loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.[46] On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The Senate passed the first bill (the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act) 6337, which would have made it legal for the federal government to spend federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures.[47] On July 19, 2006 President Bush vetoed this bill. The second bill makes it illegal to create, grow, and abort fetuses for research purposes. The third bill would encourage research that would isolate pluripotent, i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the destruction of human embryos.

In 2005 and 2007, Congressman Ron Paul introduced the Cures Can Be Found Act,[48] with 10 cosponsors. With an income tax credit, the bill favors research upon nonembryonic stem cells obtained from placentas, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, humans after birth, or unborn human offspring who died of natural causes; the bill was referred to committee. Paul argued that hESC research is outside of federal jurisdiction either to ban or to subsidize.[49]

Bush vetoed another bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007,[50] which would have amended the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The bill passed the Senate on April 11 by a vote of 63-34, then passed the House on June 7 by a vote of 247176. President Bush vetoed the bill on July 19, 2007.[51]

On March 9, 2009, President Obama removed the restriction on federal funding for newer stem cell lines. [52] Two days after Obama removed the restriction, the president then signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, which still contained the long-standing Dickey-Wicker provision which bans federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death;"[53] the Congressional provision effectively prevents federal funding being used to create new stem cell lines by many of the known methods. So, while scientists might not be free to create new lines with federal funding, President Obama's policy allows the potential of applying for such funding into research involving the hundreds of existing stem cell lines as well as any further lines created using private funds or state-level funding. The ability to apply for federal funding for stem cell lines created in the private sector is a significant expansion of options over the limits imposed by President Bush, who restricted funding to the 21 viable stem cell lines that were created before he announced his decision in 2001.[54] The ethical concerns raised during Clinton's time in office continue to restrict hESC research and dozens of stem cell lines have been excluded from funding, now by judgment of an administrative office rather than presidential or legislative discretion.[55]

In 2005, the NIH funded $607 million worth of stem cell research, of which $39 million was specifically used for hESC.[56]Sigrid Fry-Revere has argued that private organizations, not the federal government, should provide funding for stem-cell research, so that shifts in public opinion and government policy would not bring valuable scientific research to a grinding halt.[57]

In 2005, the State of California took out $3 billion in bond loans to fund embryonic stem cell research in that state.[58]

China has one of the most permissive human embryonic stem cell policies in the world. In the absence of a public controversy, human embryo stem cell research is supported by policies that allow the use of human embryos and therapeutic cloning.[59]

According to Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Halperin of the Institute for Science and Jewish Law in Jerusalem, embryonic stem cell research is permitted so long as it has not been implanted in the womb. Not only is it permitted, but research is encouraged, rather than wasting it.

However in order to remove all doubt [as to the permissibility of destroying it], it is preferable not to destroy the pre-embryo unless it will otherwise not be implanted in the woman who gave the eggs (either because there are many fertilized eggs, or because one of the parties refuses to go on with the procedurethe husband or wifeor for any other reason). Certainly it should not be implanted into another woman.... The best and worthiest solution is to use it for life-saving purposes, such as for the treatment of people that suffered trauma to their nervous system, etc.

Similarly, the sole Jewish majority state, Israel, permits research on embryonic stem cells.

The Catholic Church opposes human embryonic stem cell research calling it "an absolutely unacceptable act." The Church supports research that involves stem cells from adult tissues and the umbilical cord, as it "involves no harm to human beings at any state of development."[60]

The Southern Baptist Convention opposes human embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that "Bible teaches that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:27; 9:6) and protectable human life begins at fertilization."[61] However, it supports adult stem cell research as it does "not require the destruction of embryos."[61]

The United Methodist Church opposes human embryonic stem cell research, saying, "a human embryo, even at its earliest stages, commands our reverence."[62] However, it supports adult stem cell research, stating that there are "few moral questions" raised by this issue.[62]

The Assemblies of God opposes human embryonic stem cell research, saying, it "perpetuates the evil of abortion and should be prohibited."[63]

The religion of Islam favors the stance that scientific research and development in terms of stem cell research is allowed as long as it benefits society while using the least amount of harm to the subjects. "Stem cell research is one of the most controversial topics of our time period and has raised many religious and ethical questions regarding the research being done. With there being no true guidelines set forth in the Qur'an against the study of biomedical testing, Muslims have adopted any new studies as long as the studies do not contradict another teaching in the Qur'an. One of the teachings of the Qur'an states that Whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be if he saves the life of humankind (5:32), it is this teaching that makes stem cell research acceptable in the Muslim faith because of its promise of potential medical breakthrough."[64]

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research.[65]

View original post here:
Stem cell controversy - Wikipedia

Stem cell therapy can be defined as a part of a group of new techniques, or technologies that rely on replacing diseased or dysfunctional cells with healthy, functioning ones. These new techniques are being applied experimentally to a wide range of human disorders, including many types of cancer, neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease and ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), spinal cord injuries, and diabetes.

Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) is comprised of nationally-recognized patient organizations, universities, scientific societies, foundations, and individuals with life-threatening illnesses and disorders, advocating for the advancement of breakthrough research and technologies in regenerative medicine - including stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer - in order to cure disease and alleviate suffering.

Portraits of Hope Volunteer group of patients and their families and friends who believe that stem cell research has the potential to save the lives of those afflicted by many medical conditions, including spinal cord injury. Purpose is to show the faces and recount the stories of people who have such illnesses and present these "portraits" to federal and state legislators in request for government support.

Read more from the original source:
Stem Cells & Spinal Cord Injuries - sci-info-pages.com

knowledge center home stem cell research all about stem cells what are stem cells?

Stem cells are a class of undifferentiated cells that are able to differentiate into specialized cell types. Commonly, stem cells come from two main sources:

Both types are generally characterized by their potency, or potential to differentiate into different cell types (such as skin, muscle, bone, etc.).

Adult or somatic stem cells exist throughout the body after embryonic development and are found inside of different types of tissue. These stem cells have been found in tissues such as the brain, bone marrow, blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscles, skin, and the liver. They remain in a quiescent or non-dividing state for years until activated by disease or tissue injury.

Adult stem cells can divide or self-renew indefinitely, enabling them to generate a range of cell types from the originating organ or even regenerate the entire original organ. It is generally thought that adult stem cells are limited in their ability to differentiate based on their tissue of origin, but there is some evidence to suggest that they can differentiate to become other cell types.

Embryonic stem cells are derived from a four- or five-day-old human embryo that is in the blastocyst phase of development. The embryos are usually extras that have been created in IVF (in vitro fertilization) clinics where several eggs are fertilized in a test tube, but only one is implanted into a woman.

Sexual reproduction begins when a male's sperm fertilizes a female's ovum (egg) to form a single cell called a zygote. The single zygote cell then begins a series of divisions, forming 2, 4, 8, 16 cells, etc. After four to six days - before implantation in the uterus - this mass of cells is called a blastocyst. The blastocyst consists of an inner cell mass (embryoblast) and an outer cell mass (trophoblast). The outer cell mass becomes part of the placenta, and the inner cell mass is the group of cells that will differentiate to become all the structures of an adult organism. This latter mass is the source of embryonic stem cells - totipotent cells (cells with total potential to develop into any cell in the body).

In a normal pregnancy, the blastocyst stage continues until implantation of the embryo in the uterus, at which point the embryo is referred to as a fetus. This usually occurs by the end of the 10th week of gestation after all major organs of the body have been created.

However, when extracting embryonic stem cells, the blastocyst stage signals when to isolate stem cells by placing the "inner cell mass" of the blastocyst into a culture dish containing a nutrient-rich broth. Lacking the necessary stimulation to differentiate, they begin to divide and replicate while maintaining their ability to become any cell type in the human body. Eventually, these undifferentiated cells can be stimulated to create specialized cells.

Stem cells are either extracted from adult tissue or from a dividing zygote in a culture dish. Once extracted, scientists place the cells in a controlled culture that prohibits them from further specializing or differentiating but usually allows them to divide and replicate. The process of growing large numbers of embryonic stem cells has been easier than growing large numbers of adult stem cells, but progress is being made for both cell types.

Once stem cells have been allowed to divide and propagate in a controlled culture, the collection of healthy, dividing, and undifferentiated cells is called a stem cell line. These stem cell lines are subsequently managed and shared among researchers. Once under control, the stem cells can be stimulated to specialize as directed by a researcher - a process known as directed differentiation. Embryonic stem cells are able to differentiate into more cell types than adult stem cells.

Stem cells are categorized by their potential to differentiate into other types of cells. Embryonic stem cells are the most potent since they must become every type of cell in the body. The full classification includes:

Embryonic stem cells are considered pluripotent instead of totipotent because they do not have the ability to become part of the extra-embryonic membranes or the placenta.

A video on how stem cells work and develop.

Although there is not complete agreement among scientists of how to identify stem cells, most tests are based on making sure that stem cells are undifferentiated and capable of self-renewal. Tests are often conducted in the laboratory to check for these properties.

One way to identify stem cells in a lab, and the standard procedure for testing bone marrow or hematopoietic stem cell (HSC), is by transplanting one cell to save an individual without HSCs. If the stem cell produces new blood and immune cells, it demonstrates its potency.

Clonogenic assays (a laboratory procedure) can also be employed in vitro to test whether single cells can differentiate and self-renew. Researchers may also inspect cells under a microscope to see if they are healthy and undifferentiated or they may examine chromosomes.

To test whether human embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, scientists allow the cells to differentiate spontaneously in cell culture, manipulate the cells so they will differentiate to form specific cell types, or inject the cells into an immunosuppressed mouse to test for the formation of a teratoma (a benign tumor containing a mixture of differentiated cells).

Scientists and researchers are interested in stem cells for several reasons. Although stem cells do not serve any one function, many have the capacity to serve any function after they are instructed to specialize. Every cell in the body, for example, is derived from first few stem cells formed in the early stages of embryological development. Therefore, stem cells extracted from embryos can be induced to become any desired cell type. This property makes stem cells powerful enough to regenerate damaged tissue under the right conditions.

Tissue regeneration is probably the most important possible application of stem cell research. Currently, organs must be donated and transplanted, but the demand for organs far exceeds supply. Stem cells could potentially be used to grow a particular type of tissue or organ if directed to differentiate in a certain way. Stem cells that lie just beneath the skin, for example, have been used to engineer new skin tissue that can be grafted on to burn victims.

A team of researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital reported in PNAS Early Edition (July 2013 issue) that they were able to create blood vessels in laboratory mice using human stem cells.

The scientists extracted vascular precursor cells derived from human-induced pluripotent stem cells from one group of adults with type 1 diabetes as well as from another group of healthy adults. They were then implanted onto the surface of the brains of the mice.

Within two weeks of implanting the stem cells, networks of blood-perfused vessels had been formed - they lasted for 280 days. These new blood vessels were as good as the adjacent natural ones.

The authors explained that using stem cells to repair or regenerate blood vessels could eventually help treat human patients with cardiovascular and vascular diseases.

Additionally, replacement cells and tissues may be used to treat brain disease such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's by replenishing damaged tissue, bringing back the specialized brain cells that keep unneeded muscles from moving. Embryonic stem cells have recently been directed to differentiate into these types of cells, and so treatments are promising.

Healthy heart cells developed in a laboratory may one day be transplanted into patients with heart disease, repopulating the heart with healthy tissue. Similarly, people with type I diabetes may receive pancreatic cells to replace the insulin-producing cells that have been lost or destroyed by the patient's own immune system. The only current therapy is a pancreatic transplant, and it is unlikely to occur due to a small supply of pancreases available for transplant.

Adult hematopoietic stem cells found in blood and bone marrow have been used for years to treat diseases such as leukemia, sickle cell anemia, and other immunodeficiencies. These cells are capable of producing all blood cell types, such as red blood cells that carry oxygen to white blood cells that fight disease. Difficulties arise in the extraction of these cells through the use of invasive bone marrow transplants. However hematopoietic stem cells have also been found in the umbilical cord and placenta. This has led some scientists to call for an umbilical cord blood bank to make these powerful cells more easily obtainable and to decrease the chances of a body's rejecting therapy.

Another reason why stem cell research is being pursued is to develop new drugs. Scientists could measure a drug's effect on healthy, normal tissue by testing the drug on tissue grown from stem cells rather than testing the drug on human volunteers.

The debates surrounding stem cell research primarily are driven by methods concerning embryonic stem cell research. It was only in 1998 that researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison extracted the first human embryonic stem cells that were able to be kept alive in the laboratory. The main critique of this research is that it required the destruction of a human blastocyst. That is, a fertilized egg was not given the chance to develop into a fully-developed human.

The core of this debate - similar to debates about abortion, for example - centers on the question, "When does life begin?" Many assert that life begins at conception, when the egg is fertilized. It is often argued that the embryo deserves the same status as any other full grown human. Therefore, destroying it (removing the blastocyst to extract stem cells) is akin to murder. Others, in contrast, have identified different points in gestational development that mark the beginning of life - after the development of certain organs or after a certain time period.

People also take issue with the creation of chimeras. A chimera is an organism that has both human and animal cells or tissues. Often in stem cell research, human cells are inserted into animals (like mice or rats) and allowed to develop. This creates the opportunity for researchers to see what happens when stem cells are implanted. Many people, however, object to the creation of an organism that is "part human".

The stem cell debate has risen to the highest level of courts in several countries. Production of embryonic stem cell lines is illegal in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, and Ireland, but permitted in Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. In the United States, it is not illegal to work with or create embryonic stem cell lines. However, the debate in the US is about funding, and it is in fact illegal for federal funds to be used to research stem cell lines that were created after August 2001.

Medical News Today is a leading resource for the latest headlines on stem cell research. So, check out our stem cell research news section. You can also sign up to our weekly or daily newsletters to ensure that you stay up-to-date with the latest news.

This stem cells information section was written by Peter Crosta for Medical News Today in September 2008 and was last updated on 19 July 2013. The contents may not be re-produced in any way without the permission of Medical News Today.

Disclaimer: This informational section on Medical News Today is regularly reviewed and updated, and provided for general information purposes only. The materials contained within this guide do not constitute medical or pharmaceutical advice, which should be sought from qualified medical and pharmaceutical advisers.

Please note that although you may feel free to cite and quote this article, it may not be re-produced in full without the permission of Medical News Today. For further details, please view our full terms of use

MediLexicon International Ltd

Read the original here:
What are Stem Cells? - Health News - Medical News Today

Stem cell research carries a broad variety of impacts on society and law. Being a branch of the relatively new field of regenerative medicine, stem cell research has evolved over the years as human knowledge of cellular biology has expanded. The history of translational stem cell research is yet even smaller. This small history leads to a great uncertainty over stem cell research work.

Some of the societal issues of stem cell research are:

Implications of stem cell knowledge - As society continues to develop its knowledge of stem cell biology, will all knowledge be ultimately translated to only cures? Can too much knowledge of our own bodies lead to harm due to conditions like paranoia or anxiety? Will medical professionals become biased against other forms of treatments if stem cells do indeed prove to treat or cure a variety of diseases?

Implications of the power to cure or treat disease - If many stem cell treatments are developed, who will control the distribution of treatments? Will medical professionals be free of bias due to race, ethnicity, gender, or age, when providing stem cell treatments? Is the general public responsible enough to view stem cell therapiesin a mature way? What will happen if the general public begins to perceive stem cells as "miracle cures"? Can we control the extent to which people believe in the effectiveness of stem cell therapies?

In simple words, the sociological impact of stem cell research is outstanding when considered in the context of humans and human history. Disease and illness have devastated human populations since human beings first originated. If stem cell treatments are discovered, do they indeed become the last avenue of innovation in biomedical research and science? Is stem cell research truly as far as we can go for cures?

The legal impact of stem cell research is also very significant.

More:
Societal and Legal Issues of Stem Cell Research - Yola

The legal battle began in 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that a fetus in the mothers uterus is not considered a person with rights under the Fourteenth Amendment (US Supreme Court, Roe V. Wade, 1973). Many assumed that this ruling would extend to embryos outside the mothers uterus (Wilberforce, Forsythe et al. 2011). In addition, there was an attempt to understand the implications for how states might limit the practice of the destruction of embryos, as they did with abortion, out of an interest in protecting potential life. While indeed, some states have enacted restrictions, the court has yet to issue a ruling on the status of embryos outside the mothers uterus.

Courts recently entered the debate to address assertions that federal funding of hESC research is in violation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Return to Top

Given that the acceptability of hESC research hinges on the issue of destroying early embryos, the discussion was quickly drawn into the well-rehearsed abortion debates that have long occupied the American conscience (Robertson 2010). As such, political lines were similarly drawn, with the more conservative-minded opposing abortion and hESC research, and the more liberal-minded in favor. Political and social divisions regarding hESC research and abortion may be rooted more in differences in religious ideologies. Return to Top

With the midterm elections of 1994, however, Republicans regained control of Congress, and progress toward the start of embryo research was slowed due to pressure from the new conservative majority.

In 1996, an additional concept was added in the amendment indicating that all federal funding in support of research with human embryos is illegal. Moreover, the Dickey-Wicker amendment defines embryos as any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment provides that no federal funds can be expended by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for:

With the first derivation of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines in 1998 (toward the end of the Clinton administration), the question became whether funding of research on hESCs would be in violation of the Dickey-Wicker amendment.

Roger F. Wicker (1951 - ) the 1st term Republican junior senator of Mississippi who was appointed by then- Governor Haley Barbour in 2007 to fill the seat vacated by Trent Lott, the former Senator. In a 2008 special election, Wicker won for the remainder of Lotts term. Wicker is also known for the appropriations bill, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which he co-sponsored while representing Mississippis conservative 1st congressional district (1995 to 2007) prior to his Senate post (Congress 2007).

The first was to draw a distinction between the creation of hESC lines and research using those lines; she maintained that if the derivation of the lines was privately funded, federal funding of later research would not pose a problem regarding the creation of embryos.

As to the second issue related to the destruction of embryos during the research, she further argued that the Dickey-Wicker amendment specifically referred to the embryos in question as organisms, and embryonic stem cells, in her opinion, were not legally organisms because they cannot develop into viable embryos outside a womans uterus or, once cultured as stem cells, even inside the uterus (Marshall 1999; Dunn 2005).

Given the legal opinion of Harriet Rabb that established Clinton Administration policy about funding of hESC research, the NIH then began to develop guidelines to fund research, and was ready to begin issuing grants.

President George W. Bush adopted a more conservative variation of Harriet Rabbs approach. In his first public address regarding a human embryonic stem cell (hESC) policy, he announced that human ESC research would be allowed to go forward, but only on stem cell lines derived prior to August 9, 2001, the date of his address (Bush 2001). This approach was remarkable, seeming to favor hESC research while at the same time limiting it.

The policy proved to be more restrictive than it initially seemed. While between 60 and 70 lines had been previously derived and were available for use, over the duration of President Bushs two terms in office, only 21 lines proved viable, greatly reducing access to the basic material needed to conduct stem cell research.

In 2006, in an effort to overturn the funding ban, the Senate passed a bill allowing funding of research on lines derived after 2001, but President Bush vetoed the bill. He vetoed a similar bill the following year in 2007.

While the restriction of federal funding for hESC funding served to limit embryo research because the blastocyst must be destroyed to obtain the stem cells, embryo research actively continued with private and certain state funding (e.g., California). Moreover, despite its intent to limit research, the restriction served as an impetus for researchers to focus their efforts on novel ways to create stem cells using adult cells that did not require destruction of the embryo (Loike and Fischbach 2009).

The restrictions on stem cell research also resulted in many scientists changing research direction or going abroad to be able to continue their work. Some states like California and New York allocated substantial state and private funds in order to provide strong opportunities for scientists and to establish their states leadership in stem cell science.

The development of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, as well as the use of adult stem cell sources such as cord blood, amniotic fluid, adipose tissue, and bone marrow have led to promising developments. Scientists have been able to do with adult stem cells many of the things they might have done with embryonic stem cells, while avoiding the controversial and divisive destruction of human embryos.

Political conservative Nancy Reagan (pictured left with President Reagan) has advocated in favor of embryonic stem cell science to address Alzheimers disease, which afflicted her late husband, former President Ronald Reagan.

Return to Top

President Obama signed an order reversing the Bush administration's strict limits on human embryonic stem cell research. (See the New York Times Topics - Stem Cells)

In 2009, a few weeks after the new NIH guidelines went into effect, a group of plaintiffs that included two adult stem cell researchers (James Sherley and Theresa Deisher), an embryo adoption agency, and actual embryos, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH, insisting that federal funding of human ESC research is in violation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (contradicting Harriet Rabbs interpretation of a decade earlier). The case was initially dismissed by Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, but after an appeal, his ruling was reversed and the case was sent back to him for reconsideration regarding the competitive standing of Sherley and Deisher. (Vogel and Couzin-Frankel 2011).

With the Lamberth ruling, the NIH scrambled to put on hold new grants and renewals while struggling to fund all existing human embryonic stem cell research it supported, waiting for the Justice Department to appeal the ruling.

In September of 2010, after having been denied by the court a motion to stay the preliminary injunction, the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion with the Court of Appeals again to stay the injunction (United-States-Court-of-Appeals-for-the-DC-Circuit 2010). The Washington DC Appellate Court then blocked the temporary injunction of Judge Lamberth which has allowed funding of hESC research to continue in the interim, following the guidelines developed by the NIH.

In what may be the final word, at least as of 2011, Judge Lamberth, on July 27th, issued a ruling that the US government can continue funding embryonic stem cell research. This decision threw out the 2009 lawsuit by researchers Sherley and Deisher that had challenged President Obamas expansion of funding. The Judges latest decision came after the D.C. Circuit of Appeals removed his temporary injunction of such grants.

Lamberth stated in his opinion that the Appeals Court decision constrains this court which compelled him to dismiss the researchers challenge. Importantly, the Judge ruled that allowing federal funding for research using stem cells created using private funds is not a violation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment because such research is not research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed (Bohan, 2011).

Click here to download the Lamberth Ruling (via nature.com).

Scientists involved in embryonic stem cell research applauded Lamberths ruling. We clearly think its the right decision, said Dr. Jonathan Thomas of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. It will now lift the cloud thats been hanging over researchers around the country (Bohan, 2011)

The Lamberth ruling is a big relief for many scientists who have been anxious about their NIH funding. For the 2011 fiscal year, the NIH estimated that $358 million of its budget would go toward human non-embryonic stem cell research and $126 million would go toward human embryonic stem cell research (http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stemcells).

But Dr. David Prentice, a senior fellow for Life Sciences at the conservative Family Research Council, called the Lamberth July 2011 ruling unfortunate, saying that it allowed the flow of taxpayer funds to continue for this unethical, scientifically unworthy embryonic stem cell research. He added that it was also a sad day for patients, because it is not embryonic stem cells, but only adult stem cells that are currently treating patients and offering real hope for the future. (Bohan, 2011)

Informal Online Poll Results (Phillips, 2010)

Return to Top

Read the original post:
stemcellbioethics - Legal and Political History of Stem ...

The Stem Cell Network is back and we are moving quickly. In March 2016, the federal government announced an additional $12 million for SCN, and for that we are grateful. This funding will be used to fund innovative ...

READ STORY

The Stem Cell Networks Annual General Meeting, which metamorphosed into the Till & McCulloch Meetings, is a one-of-a-kind venue for trainees and young scientists to network and gain experience in the competit...

READ STORY

The multidisciplinary research and training program offered by the Stem Cell Network enriched and accelerated the careers of hundreds of young researchers, many of whom can now be found across industry, government a...

READ STORY

By prioritizing multidisciplinary research partnerships among stem cell researchers across Canada, the Stem Cell Network integrated the countrys previously fractured landscape into a comprehensive and globally re...

READ STORY

SCN established and funded a world-leading arms-length research program to examine the key social, legal and ethical implications of stem cell research and, based upon this credible and research-based evidence, has ...

READ STORY

The Stem Cell Networks catalysis of commercialization of stem cell research has led to 399 patent applications, 60 issued patents, 43 licenses granted, the growth or launch of 11 start-up biotechnology companies ...

READ STORY

top/haut

Go here to see the original:
Stem Cell Network

A human embryo can split into twins or triplets until about 14 days after fertilization

Egg and sperm: some people believe an embryo must be fully protected from conception onwards (Wellcome Images/Spike Walker)

Human blastocyst on the tip of a pin: embryonic stem cells can be grown from cells found in the blastocyst (Wellcome Images/Yorgos Nikas)

Some people think an embryo deserves special protection from about 14 days after fertilization

Many patients could one day benefit from embryonic stem cell research

The rules controlling embryonic stem cell research vary around the world and have been the topic of much discussion

Embryonic stem cell research poses a moral dilemma. It forces us to choose between two moral principles:

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, it is impossible to respect both moral principles.To obtain embryonic stem cells, the early embryo has to be destroyed. This means destroying a potential human life. But embryonic stem cell research could lead to the discovery of new medical treatments that would alleviate the suffering of many people. So which moral principle should have the upper hand in this situation? The answer hinges on how we view the embryo. Does it have the status of a person?

Chapter 1 of this film introduces some of the key ethical arguments. Watch this film and others on our films page.

The moral status of the embryo is a controversial and complex issue. The main viewpoints are outlined below.

1. The embryo has full moral status from fertilization onwards Either the embryo is viewed as a person whilst it is still an embryo, or it is seen as a potential person. The criteria for personhood are notoriously unclear; different people define what makes a person in different ways.

Development from a fertilized egg into to baby is a continuous process and any attempt to pinpoint when personhood begins is arbitrary. A human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage, just as an infant is a human being in the infant stage. Although an embryo does not currently have the characteristics of a person, it will become a person and should be given the respect and dignity of a person.

An early embryo that has not yet implanted into the uterus does not have the psychological, emotional or physical properties that we associate with being a person. It therefore does not have any interests to be protected and we can use it for the benefit of patients (who ARE persons).

The embryo cannot develop into a child without being transferred to a womans uterus. It needs external help to develop. Even then, the probability that embryos used for in vitro fertilization will develop into full-term successful births is low. Something that could potentially become a person should not be treated as if it actually were a person

2. There is a cut-off point at 14 days after fertilization Some people argue that a human embryo deserves special protection from around day 14 after fertilization because:

3. The embryo has increasing status as it develops An embryo deserves some protection from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, and its moral status increases as it becomes more human-like.

There are several stages of development that could be given increasing moral status:

1. Implantation of the embryo into the uterus wall around six days after fertilization. 2. Appearance of the primitive streak the beginnings of the nervous system at around 14 days. 3. The phase when the baby could survive if born prematurely. 4. Birth.

If a life is lost, we tend to feel differently about it depending on the stage of the lost life. A fertilized egg before implantation in the uterus could be granted a lesser degree of respect than a human fetus or a born baby.

More than half of all fertilized eggs are lost due to natural causes. If the natural process involves such loss, then using some embryos in stem cell research should not worry us either.

We protect a persons life and interests not because they are valuable from the point of view of the universe, but because they are important to the person concerned. Whatever moral status the human embryo has for us, the life that it lives has a value to the embryo itself.

If we judge the moral status of the embryo from its age, then we are making arbitrary decisions about who is human. For example, even if we say formation of the nervous system marks the start of personhood, we still would not say a patient who has lost nerve cells in a stroke has become less human.

If we are not sure whether a fertilized egg should be considered a human being, then we should not destroy it. A hunter does not shoot if he is not sure whether his target is a deer or a man.

4. The embryo has no moral status at all An embryo is organic material with a status no different from other body parts.

Fertilized human eggs are just parts of other peoples bodies until they have developed enough to survive independently. The only respect due to blastocysts is the respect that should be shown to other peoples property. If we destroy a blastocyst before implantation into the uterus we do not harm it because it has no beliefs, desires, expectations, aims or purposes to be harmed.

By taking embryonic stem cells out of an early embryo, we prevent the embryo from developing in its normal way. This means it is prevented from becoming what it was programmed to become a human being.

Different religions view the status of the early human embryo in different ways. For example, the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and conservative Protestant Churches believe the embryo has the status of a human from conception and no embryo research should be permitted. Judaism and Islam emphasize the importance of helping others and argue that the embryo does not have full human status before 40 days, so both these religions permit some research on embryos. Other religions take other positions. You can read more about this by downloading the extended version of this factsheet below.

Extended factsheet with a fuller discussion of the issues by Kristina Hug (pdf) EuroStemCell film "Conversations: ethics, science, stem cells" EuroStemCell factsheet on ethical issues relating to the sources of embyronic stem cells EuroStemCell factsheet on the science of embryonic stem cells EuroStemCell FAQ on human embryonic stem cells and their use in research EuroStemCell summaries of regulations on stem cell research in Europe Booklet for 16+ year olds about stem cells and ethics from the BBSRC Research paper on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research by Kristina Hug

This factsheet was created by Kristina Hug and reviewed by Gran Hermern.

Images courtesy of Wellcome Images: Egg and sperm by Spike Walker; Blastocyst on pin by Yorgos Nikas; Diabetes patient injecting insulin by the Wellcome library, London.

Other images from "Conversations : ethics, science, stem cells", a film by EuroStemCell.

Originally posted here:
Embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma | Europe ...

The potential therapeutic benefits of HESC research provide strong grounds in favor of the research. If looked at from a strictly consequentialist perspective, it's almost certainly the case that the potential health benefits from the research outweigh the loss of embryos involved and whatever suffering results from that loss for persons who want to protect embryos. However, most of those who oppose the research argue that the constraints against killing innocent persons to promote social utility apply to human embryos. Thus, as long as we accept non-consequentialist constraints on killing persons, those supporting HESC research must respond to the claim that those constraints apply to human embryos.

In its most basic form, the central argument supporting the claim that it is unethical to destroy human embryos goes as follows: It is morally impermissible to intentionally kill innocent human beings; the human embryo is an innocent human being; therefore it is morally impermissible to intentionally kill the human embryo. It is worth noting that this argument, if sound, would not suffice to show that all or even most HESC research is impermissible, since most investigators engaged in HESC research do not participate in the derivation of HESCs but instead use cell lines that researchers who performed the derivation have made available. To show that researchers who use but do not derive HESCs participate in an immoral activity, one would further need to establish their complicity in the destruction of embryos. We will consider this issue in section 2. But for the moment, let us address the argument that it is unethical to destroy human embryos.

A premise of the argument against killing embryos is that human embryos are human beings. The issue of when a human being begins to exist is, however, a contested one. The standard view of those who oppose HESC research is that a human being begins to exist with the emergence of the one-cell zygote at fertilization. At this stage, human embryos are said to be whole living member[s] of the species homo sapiens [which] possess the epigenetic primordia for self-directed growth into adulthood, with their determinateness and identity fully intact (George & Gomez-Lobo 2002, 258). This view is sometimes challenged on the grounds that monozygotic twinning is possible until around days 1415 of an embryo's development (Smith & Brogaard 2003). An individual who is an identical twin cannot be numerically identical to the one-cell zygote, since both twins bear the same relationship to the zygote, and numerical identity must satisfy transitivity. That is, if the zygote, A, divides into two genetically identical cell groups that give rise to identical twins B and C, B and C cannot be the same individual as A because they are not numerically identical with each other. This shows that not all persons can correctly assert that they began their life as a zygote. However, it does not follow that the zygote is not a human being, or that it has not individuated. This would follow only if one held that a condition of an entity's status as an individual human being is that it be impossible for it to cease to exist by dividing into two or more entities. But this seems implausible. Consider cases in which we imagine adult humans undergoing fission (for example, along the lines of Parfit's thought experiments, where each half of the brain is implanted into a different body) (Parfit 1984). The prospect of our going out of existence through fission does not pose a threat to our current status as distinct human persons. Likewise, one might argue, the fact that a zygote may divide does not create problems for the view that the zygote is a distinct human being.

There are, however, other grounds on which some have sought to reject that the early human embryo is a human being. According to one view, the cells that comprise the early embryo are a bundle of homogeneous cells that exist in the same membrane but do not form a human organism because the cells do not function in a coordinated way to regulate and preserve a single life (Smith & Brogaard 2003, McMahan 2002). While each of the cells is alive, they only become parts of a human organism when there is substantial cell differentiation and coordination, which occurs around day-16 after fertilization. Thus, on this account, disaggregating the cells of the 5-day embryo to derive HESCs does not entail the destruction of a human being.

This account is subject to dispute on empirical grounds. That there is some intercellular coordination in the zygote is revealed by the fact that the development of the early embryo requires that some cells become part of the trophoblast while others become part of the inner cell mass. Without some coordination between the cells, there would be nothing to prevent all cells from differentiating in the same direction (Damschen, Gomez-Lobo and Schonecker 2006). The question remains, though, whether this degree of cellular interaction is sufficient to render the early human embryo a human being. Just how much intercellular coordination must exist for a group of cells to constitute a human organism cannot be resolved by scientific facts about the embryo, but is instead an open metaphysical question (McMahan 2007a).

Suppose that the 5-day human embryo is a human being. On the standard argument against HESC research, membership in the species Homo sapiens confers on the embryo a right not to be killed. This view is grounded in the assumption that human beings have the same moral status (at least with respect to possessing this right) at all stages of their lives.

Some accept that the human embryo is a human being but argue that the human embryo does not have the moral status requisite for a right to life. There is reason to think that species membership is not the property that determines a being's moral status. We have all been presented with the relevant thought experiments, courtesy of Disney, Orwell, Kafka, and countless science fiction works. The results seem clear: we regard mice, pigs, insects, aliens, and so on, as having the moral status of persons in those possible worlds in which they exhibit the psychological and cognitive traits that we normally associate with mature human beings. This suggests that it is some higher-order mental capacity (or capacities) that grounds the right to life. While there is no consensus about the capacities that are necessary for the right to life, some of the capacities that have been proposed include reasoning, self-awareness, and agency (Kuhse & Singer 1992, Tooley 1983, Warren 1973).

The main difficulty for those who appeal to such mental capacities as the touchstone for the right to life is that early human infants lack these capacities, and do so to a greater degree than many of the nonhuman animals that most deem it acceptable to kill (Marquis 2002). This presents a challenge for those who hold that the non-consequentialist constraints on killing human children and adults apply to early human infants. Some reject that these constraints apply to infants, and allow that there may be circumstances where it is permissible to sacrifice infants for the greater good (McMahan 2007b). Others argue that, while infants do not have the intrinsic properties that ground a right to life, we should nonetheless treat them as if they have a right to life in order to promote love and concern towards them, as these attitudes have good consequences for the persons they will become (Benn 1973, Strong 1997).

Some claim that we can reconcile the ascription of a right to life to all humans with the view that higher order mental capacities ground the right to life by distinguishing between two senses of mental capacities: immediately exercisable capacities and basic natural capacities. (George and Gomez-Lobo 2002, 260). According to this view, an individual's immediately exercisable capacity for higher mental functions is the actualization of natural capacities for higher mental functions that exist at the embryonic stage of life. Human embryos have a rational nature, but that nature is not fully realized until individuals are able to exercise their capacity to reason. The difference between these types of capacity is said to be a difference between degrees of development along a continuum. There is merely a quantitative difference between the mental capacities of embryos, fetuses, infants, children, and adults (as well as among infants, children, and adults). And this difference, so the argument runs, cannot justify treating some of these individuals with moral respect while denying it to others.

Given that a human embryo cannot reason at all, the claim that it has a rational nature has struck some as tantamount to asserting that it has the potential to become an individual that can engage in reasoning (Sagan & Singer 2007). But an entity's having this potential does not logically entail that it has the same status as beings that have realized some or all of their potential (Feinberg 1986). Moreover, with the advent of cloning technologies, the range of entities that we can now identify as potential persons arguably creates problems for those who place great moral weight on the embryo's potential. A single somatic cell or HESC can in principle (though not yet in practice) develop into a mature human being under the right conditionsthat is, where the cell's nucleus is transferred into an enucleated egg, the new egg is electrically stimulated to create an embryo, and the embryo is transferred to a woman's uterus and brought to term. If the basis for protecting embryos is that they have the potential to become reasoning beings, then, some argue, we have reason to ascribe a high moral status to the trillions of cells that share this potential and to assist as many of these cells as we reasonably can to realize their potential (Sagan & Singer 2007, Savulescu 1999). Because this is a stance that we can expect nearly everyone to reject, it's not clear that opponents of HESC research can effectively ground their position in the human embryo's potential.

One response to this line of argument has been to claim that embryos possess a kind of potential that somatic cells and HESCs lack. An embryo has potential in the sense of having an active disposition and intrinsic power to develop into a mature human being (Lee & George 2006). An embryo can mature on its own in the absence of interference with its development. A somatic cell, on the other hand, does not have the inherent capacity or disposition to grow into a mature human being. However, some question whether this distinction is viable, especially in the HESC research context. While it is true that somatic cells can realize their potential only with the assistance of outside interventions, an embryo's development also requires that numerous conditions external to it are satisfied. In the case of embryos that are naturally conceived, they must implant, receive nourishment, and avoid exposure to dangerous substances in utero. In the case of spare embryos created through in vitro fertilizationwhich are presently the source of HESCs for researchthe embryos must be thawed and transferred to a willing woman's uterus. Given the role that external factorsincluding technological interventionsplay in an embryo's realizing its potential, one can question whether there is a morally relevant distinction between an embryo's and somatic cell's potential and thus raise doubts about potentiality as a foundation for the right to life (Devolder & Harris 2007).

Some grant that human embryos lack the properties essential to a right to life, but hold that they possess an intrinsic value that calls for a measure of respect and places at least some moral constraints on their use: The life of a single human organism commands respect and protection no matter in what form or shape, because of the complex creative investment it represents and because of our wonder at the divine or evolutionary processes that produce new lives from old ones. (Dworkin l992, 84). There are, however, divergent views about the level of respect embryos command and what limits exist on their use. Some opponents of HESC research hold that the treatment of human embryos as mere research tools always fails to manifest proper respect for them. Other opponents take a less absolutist view. Some, for example, deem embryos less valuable than more mature human beings but argue that the benefits of HESC research are too speculative to warrant the destruction of embryos, and that the benefits might, in any case, be achieved through the use of noncontroversial sources of stem cells (e.g., adult stem cells) (Holm 2003).

Many, if not most, who support the use of human embryos for HESC research would likely agree with opponents of the research that there are some circumstances where the use of human embryos would display a lack of appropriate respect for human life, for example, were they to be offered for consumption to contestants in a reality TV competition or destroyed for the production of cosmetics. But proponents of the research hold that the value of human embryos is not great enough to constrain the pursuit of research that may yield significant therapeutic benefits. Supporters of the research also frequently question whether most opponents of the research are consistent in their ascription of a high value to human embryos, as opponents generally display little concern about the fact that many embryos created for fertility treatment are discarded.

When spare embryos exist after fertility treatment, the individuals for whom the embryos were created typically have the option of storing for them for future reproductive use, donating them to other infertile couples, donating them to research, or discarding them. Some argue that as long as the decision to donate embryos for research is made after the decision to discard them, it is morally permissible to use them in HESC research even if we assume that they have the moral status of persons. The claim takes two different forms. One is that it is morally permissible to kill an individual who is about to be killed by someone else where killing that individual will help others (Curzer, H. 2004). The other is that researchers who derive HESCs from embryos that were slated for destruction do not cause their death. Instead, the decision to discard the embryos causes their death; research just causes the manner of their death (Green 2002).

Both versions of the argument presume that the decision to discard spare embryos prior to the decision to donate them to research entails that donated embryos are doomed to destruction when researchers receive them. There are two arguments one might marshal against this presumption. First, one who wants to donate embryos to research might first elect to discard them only because doing so is a precondition for donating them. There could be cases in which one who chooses the discard option would have donated the embryos to other couples were the research donation option not available. The fact that a decision to discard embryos is made prior to the decision to donate the embryos thus does not establish that the embryos were doomed to destruction before the decision to donate them to research was made. Second, a researcher who receives embryos could choose to rescue them, whether by continuing to store them or by donating them to infertile couples. While this would violate the law, the fact that it is within a researcher's power to prevent the destruction of the embryos he or she receives poses problems for the claim that the decision to discard the embryos dooms them or causes their destruction.

Assume for the sake of argument that it is morally impermissible to destroy human embryos. It does not follow that all research with HESCs is impermissible, as it is sometimes permissible to benefit from moral wrongs. For example, there is nothing objectionable about transplant surgeons and patients benefiting from the organs of murder and drunken driving victims (Robertson 1988). If there are conditions under which a researcher may use HESCs without being complicit in the destruction of embryos, then those who oppose the destruction of embryos could support research with HESCs under certain circumstances.

Researchers using HESCs are clearly implicated in the destruction of embryos where they derive the cells themselves or enlist others to derive the cells. However, most investigators who conduct research with HESCs obtain them from an existing pool of cell lines and play no role in their derivation. One view is that we cannot assign causal or moral responsibility to investigators for the destruction of embryos from which the HESCs they use are derived where their research plans had no effect on whether the original immoral derivation occurred. (Robertson 1999). This view requires qualification. There may be cases in which HESCs are derived for the express purpose of making them widely available to HESC investigators. In such instances, it may be that no individual researcher's plans motivated the derivation of the cells. Nonetheless, one might argue that investigators who use these cells are complicit in the destruction of the embryos from which the cells were derived because they are participants in a research enterprise that creates a demand for HESCs. For these investigators to avoid the charge of complicity in the destruction of embryos, it must be the case that the researchers who derived the HESCs would have performed the derivation in the absence of external demand for the cells (Siegel 2004).

The issue about complicity goes beyond the question of an HESC researcher's role in the destruction of the particular human embryo(s) from which the cells he or she uses are derived. There is a further concern that research with existing HESCs will result in the future destruction of embryos: [I]f this research leads to possible treatments, private investment in such efforts will increase greatly and the demand for many thousands of cell lines with different genetic profiles will be difficult to resist. (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 2001). This objection faces two difficulties. First, it appears to be too sweeping: research with adult stem cells and non-human animal stem cells, as well as general research in genetics, embryology, and cell biology could be implicated, since all of this research might advance our understanding of HESCs and result in increased demand for them. Yet, no one, including those who oppose HESC research, argues that we should not support these areas of research. Second, the claim about future demand for HESCs is speculative. Indeed, current HESC research could ultimately reduce or eliminate demand for the cells by providing insights into cell biology that enable the use of alternative sources of cells (Siegel 2004).

While it might thus be possible for a researcher to use HESCs without being morally responsible for the destruction of human embryos, that does not end the inquiry into complicity. Some argue that agents can be complicit in wrongful acts for which they are not morally responsible. One such form of complicity arises from an association with wrongdoing that symbolizes acquiescence in the wrongdoing (Burtchaell 1989). The failure to take appropriate measures to distance oneself from moral wrongs may give rise to metaphysical guilt, which produces a moral taint and for which shame is the appropriate response (May 1992). The following question thus arises: Assuming it is morally wrongful to destroy human embryos, are HESC researchers who are not morally responsible for the destruction of embryos complicit in the sense of symbolically aligning themselves with a wrongful act?

One response is that a researcher who benefits from the destruction of embryos need not sanction the act any more than the transplant surgeon who uses the organs of a murder or drunken driving victim sanctions the homicidal act (Curzer 2004). But this response is unlikely to be satisfactory to opponents of HESC research. There is arguably an important difference between the transplant case and HESC research insofar as the moral wrong associated with the latter (a) systematically devalues a particular class of human beings and (b) is largely socially accepted and legally permitted. Opponents of HESC research might suggest that the HESC research case is more analogous to the following kind of case: Imagine a society in which the practice of killing members of a particular racial or ethnic group is legally permitted and generally accepted. Suppose that biological materials obtained from these individuals subsequent to their deaths are made available for research uses. Could researchers use these materials while appropriately distancing themselves from the wrongful practice? Arguably, they could not. There is a heightened need to protest moral wrongs where those wrongs are socially and legally accepted. Attempts to benefit from the moral wrong in these circumstances may be incompatible with mounting a proper protest (Siegel 2003).

But even if we assume that HESC researchers cannot avoid the taint of metaphysical guilt, it is not clear that researchers who bear no moral responsibility for the destruction of embryos are morally obligated not to use HESCs. One might argue that there is a prima facie duty to avoid moral taint, but that this duty may be overridden for the sake of a noble cause.

Most HESCs are derived from embryos that were created for infertility treatment but that were in excess of what the infertile individual(s) ultimately needed to achieve a pregnancy. The HESCs derived from these leftover embryos offer investigators a powerful tool for understanding the mechanisms controlling cell differentiation. However, there are scientific and therapeutic reasons not to rely entirely on leftover embryos. From a research standpoint, creating embryos through cloning technologies with cells that are known to have particular genetic mutations would allow researchers to study the underpinnings of genetic diseases in vitro. From a therapeutic standpoint, the HESCs obtained from leftover IVF embryos are not genetically diverse enough to address the problem of immune rejection by recipients of stem cell transplants. (Induced pluripotent stem cells may ultimately prove sufficient for these research and therapeutic ends, since the cells can (a) be selected for specific genetic mutations and (b) provide an exact genetic match for stem cell recipients.) At present, the best way to address the therapeutic problem is through the creation of a public stem cell bank that represents a genetically diverse pool of stem cell lines (Faden et al. 2003, Lott & Savulescu 2007). This kind of stem cell bank would require the creation of embryos from gamete donors who share the same HLA-types (i.e., similar versions of the genes that mediate immune recognition and rejection).

Each of these enterprises has its own set of ethical issues. In the case of research cloning, some raise concerns, for example, that the perfection of cloning techniques for research purposes will enable the pursuit of reproductive cloning, and that efforts to obtain the thousands of eggs required for the production of cloned embryos will result in the exploitation of women who provide the eggs (President's Council on Bioethics 2002, Norsigian 2005). With respect to stem cell banks, it is not practically possible to create a bank of HESCs that will provide a close immunological match for all recipients. This gives rise to the challenge of determining who will have biological access to stem cell therapies. We might construct the bank so that it provides matches for the greatest number of people in the population, gives everyone an equal chance of finding a match, or ensures that all ancestral/ethnic groups are fairly represented in the bank (Faden et al. 2003, Bok, Schill, & Faden 2004, Greene 2006).

There are, however, more general challenges to the creation of embryos for research and therapeutic purposes. Some argue that the creation of embryos for non-reproductive ends is morally problematic, regardless of whether they are created through cloning or in vitro fertilization. There are two related arguments that have been advanced to morally distinguish the creation of embryos for reproductive purposes from the creation of embryos for research and therapeutic purposes. First, each embryo created for procreative purposes is originally viewed as a potential child in the sense that each is a candidate for implantation and development into a mature human. In contrast, embryos created for research or therapies are viewed as mere tools from the outset (Annas, Caplan & Elias 1996, President's Council on Bioethics 2002). Second, while embryos created for research and therapy are produced with the intent to destroy them, the destruction of embryos created for reproduction is a foreseeable but unintended consequence of their creation (FitzPatrick 2003).

One response to the first argument has been to suggest that we could, under certain conditions, view all research embryos as potential children in the relevant sense. If all research embryos were included in a lottery in which some of them were donated to individuals for reproductive purposes, all research embryos would have a chance at developing into mature humans (Devander 2005). Since those who oppose creating embryos for research would likely maintain their opposition in the research embryo lottery case, it is arguably irrelevant whether embryos are viewed as potential children when they are created. Of course, research embryos in the lottery case would be viewed as both potential children and potential research tools. But this is also true in the case of embryos created for reproductive purposes where patients are open to donating spare embryos to research.

As to the second argument, the distinction between intending and merely foreseeing harms is one to which many people attach moral significance, and it is central to the Doctrine of Double Effect. But even if one holds that this is a morally significant distinction, it is not clear that it is felicitous to characterize the destruction of spare embryos as an unintended but foreseeable side-effect of creating embryos for fertility treatment. Fertility clinics do not merely foresee that some embryos will be destroyed, as they choose to offer patients the option of discarding embryos and carry out the disposal of embryos when patients request it. Patients who elect that their embryos be discarded also do not merely foresee the embryos' destruction; their election of that option manifests their intention that the embryos be destroyed. There is thus reason to doubt that there is a moral distinction between creating embryos for research and creating them for reproductive purposes, at least given current fertility clinic practices.

Recent scientific work suggests it is possible to derive gametes from human pluripotent stem cells. Researchers have generated sperm and eggs from mouse ESCs and iPSCs and have used these stem cell-derived gametes to produce offspring (Hayashi 2011; Hayashi 2012). While it may take several years before researchers succeed in deriving gametes from human stem cells, the research holds much promise for basic science and clinical application. For example, the research could provide important insights into the fundamental processes of gamete biology, assist in the understanding of genetic disorders, and provide otherwise infertile individuals a means of creating genetically related children. The ability to derive gametes from human stem cells could also reduce or eliminate the need for egg donors and thus help overcome concerns about exploitation of donors and the risks involved in egg retrieval. Nonetheless, the research gives rise to some controversial issues related to embryos, genetics, and assisted reproductive technologies (D. Mathews et al. 2009).

One issue arises from the fact that some research on stem cell-derived gametes requires the creation of embryos, regardless of whether one is using ESCs or iPSCs. To establish that a particular technique for deriving human gametes from stem cells produces functional sperm and eggs, it is necessary to demonstrate that the cells can produce an embryo. This entails the creation of embryos through in vitro fertilization. Since it would not be safe to implant embryos created during the early stages of the research, the likely disposition of the embryos is that they would be destroyed. In such instances, the research would implicate all of the moral issues surrounding the creation and destruction of embryos for research. However, the creation of embryos for research in this situation would not necessitate the destruction of the embryos, as it does when embryos are created to derive stem cell lines. One could in principle store them indefinitely rather than destroy them. This would still leave one subject to the objection that life is being created for instrumental purposes. But the force of the objection is questionable since it is not clear that this instrumental use is any more objectionable than the routine and widely accepted practice of creating excess IVF embryos in the reproductive context to increase the probability of generating a sufficient number of viable ones to produce a pregnancy.

Further issues emerge with the prospect of being able to produce large quantities of eggs from stem cells. As the capacity to identify disease and non-disease related alleles through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) expands, the ability to create large numbers of embryos would substantially increase the chances of finding an embryo that possesses most or all of the traits one wishes to select. This would be beneficial in preventing the birth of children with genetic diseases. But matters would become morally contentious if it were possible to select for non-disease characteristics, such as sexual orientation, height, superior intelligence, memory, and musical ability. One common argument against using PGD in this way is that it could devalue the lives of those who do not exhibit the chosen characteristics. Another concern is that employing PGD to select for non-disease traits would fail to acknowledge the giftedness of life by treating children as objects of our design or products of our will or instruments of our ambition rather accepting them as they are given to us (Sandel 2004, 56). There is additionally a concern about advances in genetics heightening inequalities where certain traits confer social and economic advantages and only the well-off have the resources to access the technology (Buchanan 1995). Of course, one can question whether the selection of non-disease traits would in fact lead to devaluing other characteristics, whether it would alter the nature of parental love, or whether it is distinct enough from currently permitted methods of gaining social and economic advantage to justify regulating the practice. Nonetheless, the capacity to produce human stem cell-derived gametes would make these issues more pressing.

Follow this link:
Ethics of Stem Cell Research (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...

Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Scientists are still studying the scope of human embryonic stem cells as they have the potential to develop into almost any cell in the human body. Using blastocyst, the inner cell mass of the early human embryos, they developed the first human embryonic stem cell lines. The focus was on discovering the true potential of these cells in treating diseases and conditions and to regenerate tissues for disfunctioning cells or organs. They had focused on spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and diabetes among others. The source of the stem cells included 7 day embryos which were left post an IVF infertility treatment and 5- 7 week old embryos obtained through abortions and developed tissues such as umbilical cord blood and bone marrow. Since 1998, there have been controversies surrounding extraction of stem cells from embryos as it involved destroying them. As these were far more useful than developed stem cells, researchers focused more on them.

Executive Action

Read more from the original source:
Stem Cell Research Legal Issues and Political Impact

2009

"A UK and Canadian team have manipulated human skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells without using viruses making them safer for use in humans.

"Study leader Dr. Keisuke Kaji, from the Medical Research Council Centre for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said nobody, including himself, had thought it was really possible. 'It is a step towards the practical use of reprogrammed cells in medicine, perhaps even eliminating the need for human embryos as a source of stem cells,' he said."

--

"'Ethical' stem cell creation hope," BBC News, March 1, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7914976.stm

***

"A groundbreaking medical treatment that could dramatically enhance the body's ability to repair itself has been developed by a team of British researchers. The therapy, which makes the body release a flood of stem cells into the bloodstream, is designed to heal serious tissue damage caused by heart attacks and even repair broken bones.

"A possible danger with some other stem cell therapies in the pipeline is their use of embryonic stem cells. Because these can turn into any type of tissue, there is a risk they could grow into cancer cells when injected into patients. [This] treatment uses stem cells that can only grow into blood vessels, bone and cartilage, so the risk of causing cancer is removed."

--

I. Sample, "Revolutionary stem cell therapy boosts body's ability to heal itself," The Guardian (United Kingdom) , January 8, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/08/stem-cells-bone-marrow-heart-attack

***

"Controversial research into the use of 'hybrid' human-animal embryos to make stem cells is in danger of stalling because of a lack of funding, British scientists claim.

"Since the furore broke scientists have developed a cheap and powerful new technique in which adult skin cells are reprogrammed to create cells that are almost identical to stem cells. Researchers have already used the technique to make so-called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells for patients with diabetes, muscular dystrophy and Down's syndrome.

[Quoting Harry Moore, head of reproductive biology at Sheffield University] 'What has happened is the field has moved on. You could argue that iPS cells are a more important area than hybrids now.' "

--

I. Sample, "Rival stem cell technique takes the heat out of hybrid embryo debate," The Guardian. January 13, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/13/hybrid-embryos-stem-cells

***

"A dose of their own stem cells 'reset' the malfunctioning immune system of patients with early-stage multiple sclerosis and, for the first time, reversed their disability.

'This is the first study to actually show reversal of disability,' said Richard Burt, an associate professor in the division of immunotherapy at Northwestern, and the lead author of the study published yesterday in the British journal, the Lancet Neurology. 'Some people had complete disappearance of all symptoms.' "

--

R. Waters, "Dose of Own Stem Cells Reverses Patients' Multiple Sclerosis," Bloomberg News, January 30, 2009, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=akHXxf3bS3TY&refer=home

***

"A new study suggests that adult bone marrow stem cells can be used in the construction of artificial skin. The findings mark an advancement in wound healing and may be used to pioneer a method of organ reconstruction."

--

"Study Uses Bone Marrow Stem Cells to Regenerate Skin," Physorg, January 14, 2009, http://www.physorg.com/news151166956.html

***

2008

"The reality is that the bulk of today's stem-cell research relies on adult stem cells taken from bone marrow, blood, skeletal muscles, body fat and umbilical cord blood. Scientists have even managed to coax adult skin cells to mimic the versatility of embryonic stem cells, which can grow virtually any cell or tissue in the human body. Unlike embryonic stem cells, though, these adult stem cells are being tested in humans right now, with very real possibilities to change the way various diseases are treated in the next five to 10 years."

--

T. Wheeler, "Stem cells mature," Beacon Journal (Akron, Ohio), April 6, 2008.

***

"For the first time, scientists at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC have discovered a unique population of adult stem cells derived from human muscle that could be used to treat muscle injuries and diseases such as heart attack and muscular dystrophy.

"Because this is an autologous transplant, meaning from the patient to himself, there is not the risk of rejection you would have if you took the stem cells from another source

"Myoendothelial cells also showed no propensity to form tumors, a concern with other stem cell therapies."

--

"Pittsburgh scientists identify human source of stem cells with potential to repair muscle damaged by disease or injury," Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, September 4, 2007, http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/28732E.htm.

***

2007

"An Ecuadorian stem cellexpert said on September 24 that transplants of autologous adult bone marrow stem cells restored some function in spinal cord injury (SCI) patients who have been paralyzed for an average of four years, some up to 22 years.

"Of the 25 patients who provided more than three months and up to 14 months follow up: 15 gained the ability to stand up, 10 could walk on the parallels with braces, seven could walk without braces and five could walk with crutches. Three patients recovered full bladder control, and 10 patients regained some form of sexual function. No adverse events or abnormal reactions to implantation were observed.

'By implanting an adult's own bone marrow stem cells, we've seen significant improvements in the quality of life for those who suffer from spinal cord injuries,' said Francisco Silva, executive vice president of research and development for PrimeCell Therapeutics."

--

"Marrow Stem Cell Transplants Restore Spinal Cord Functions," Stem Cell Business News, Sept. 24, 2007, http://www.stemcellresearchnews.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=867&z=15

***

"In recent years, scientists have discovered that red bone marrow is the body's Swiss Army repair kit. It contains a traveling laboratory of cells that can heal the liver, heart, kidneys, leg arteries, pancreas, and even ovaries and the brain. Up to 40 percent of the liver can be regrown from stem cells found in bone marrow, researchers at New York University School of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine and Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center found."

--

B. J. Fikes, "Body parts Bone marrow: The body's repair kit," North County Times (San Diego, CA), May 20, 2006, http://www.nctimes.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/article_0bcace84-44ac-51bc-99a0-b1bf6ddb6d21.html

***

2006

"The results of a study published in the April issue of Stem Cells and Development suggest that human stem cells derived from bone marrow are predisposed to develop into a variety of nerve cell types, supporting the promise of developing stem cell-based therapies to treat neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis.

"When transplanted into the central nervous system, [these cells] will develop into a variety of functional neural cell types, making them a potent resource for cell-based therapy."

--

"New Findings Support Promise of Using Stem Cells to Treat Neurodegenerative Diseases," Business Wire, May 1, 2006, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_May_1/ai_n16135565/

2005

"A team of Texas and British researchers says it has produced large amounts of embryoniclike stem cells from umbilical cord blood, potentially ending the ethical debate affecting stem-cell research -- the need to kill human embryos. The international researchers said the cells -- called cord-blood-derived-embryoniclike stem cells, or CBEs -- have the ability to turn into any kind of body tissue, like embryonic stem cells do, and can be mass-produced using technology derived from NASA.... "Scientists believe the ability to replicate tissue could lead to the development of ways to replace organs as well as treat life-threatening diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, which have been the focus of stem-cell research." -- J. Price, "Advance made in stem-cell debate," The Washington Times, August 20, 2005, http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050820-122747-2417r.htm

* * *

"Various studies that have been conducted around the world, including a limited number performed in the United States, have suggested that when patients with heart failure receive stem cells taken from their bone marrow, their hearts show signs of improved function and recovery." -- "Stem Cells With Heart Bypass Surgery Trial To Begin At University Of Pittsburgh," ScienceDaily, August 25, 2005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050825070117.htm

* * * "Researchers in Boston have isolated a kind of cell from human bone marrow that they say has all the medical potential of human embryonic stem cells.... "Tufts University researchers used specialized cell-sorting machines to pluck the peculiar cells from samples of bone marrow obtained from different donors. Tests suggested the cells are capable of morphing into many, and perhaps all, of the various kinds of cells that make up the human body. ...

"When a batch of the newly identified marrow cells were injected into the hearts of rats that had experienced heart attacks, some of the cells turned into new heart muscle while others became new blood vessels to support the ailing hearts. ...

"'I think embryonic stem cells are going to fade in the rearview mirror of adult stem cells,' said Douglas W. Losordo, the Tufts cardiologist who left the effort.... Bone marrow, he said, 'is like a repair kit. Nature provided us with these tools to repair organ damage.'"

-Rick Weiss, "Marrow Has Cells Like Stem Cells, Tests Show," Washington Post, Feburary 2, 2005, p. A3, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55369-2005Feb1.html .

* * * "[Erica] Nader, 26, of Farmington Hills, Mich., was the first American to travel to Portugal, in March 2003, for experimental sugery for spinal cord injury. She was injured in July 2001 in an auto accident... She was paralyzed from the top of her arms down. "In the procedure...a team of doctors opened Nader's spinal cord to clear out any scar tissue.... Then, using a long tube, they took a sample of olfactory mucosal cells from the ridge of her nose.... These cells are among the body's richest supply of adult stem cells and are capable of becoming any type of cell, depending on where they are implanted. In this case, these adult stem cells were to take on the job of neurons, or nerve cells, once implanted in the spinal cord at the site of an injury. ... "And after three years, magnetic imaging resonance tests show that the cells indeed promote the development of new blood cells and synapses, or connections between nerve cells, says Dr. Carlos Lima, chief of the Lisbon team. ... "Dr. Pratas Vital, one of two neurosurgeons on the team, calls the transplanted cells spinal cord autografts, a term that indicates the cells come from a person's own body, not fetal or embryonic stem cells. ...

"[Erica] is much stronger and much more capable of lifting her arms, bending her knees on a slanted exercise board and standing erect. ... Once, she was paralyzed from her biceps down. Now, she can push herself off an exercise ball, do arm lifts and help raise herself off a floor mat. ... In the past six weeks, she's started to walk in leg braces with a walker or on a treadmill." -Patricia Anstett, "Paraplegic improving after stem-cell implant," The Indianapolis Star, January 16, 2005, at http://www.indystar.com/articles/5/209449-5235-047.html.

* * * 2004

"[E]vidence from three different labs the University of Minnesota, the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey, and Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago have found three different ASCs [adult stem cells] that may be completely plastic. ... As the team leader at the Robert Wood Johnson School, Ira Black, told me, 'In aggregate, our study and various others do support the idea that one [adult stem cell] can give rise to all types of tissue.' ...

-Michael Fumento, "The Adult Answer," National Review Online, December 20, 2004, at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fumento200412200902.asp.

* * * "Scientists have transplanted adult stem cells from the bone marrow of rats into the brains of rat embryos and found that thousands of the cells survive into adulthood, raising the possibility that someday developmental abnormalities could be prevented or treated in the womb. "Dr. Ira Black, chairman of the department of neuroscience at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, said the cells took on the properties of brain cells, migrating to specific regions and taking up characteristics of neighboring cells. ... "Black and his colleagues used a specific type of bone marrow cell called a stromal cell, taken from the leg bones of adult rats. 'We see this potentially as an appropriate treatment for prenatal disease, mental retardation and congenital conditions,' Black said. The hope is that a patient's own bone barrow might someday be the source for replacing brain cells lost to illness and brain trauma, experts say, eliminating the need to use human embryonic stem cells. "In a separate study, Dr. Alexander Storch of the University of Ulm, Germany, recently took bone marrow and stromal cells from six healthy people and converted the cells into immature neural stem cells. ... 'A single cell culture could grow all major brain cell types,' said Storch, who used specific growth factors to help them differentiate. ...Storch is now transplanting the cells into mice with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and stroke symptoms. In the stroke study, the labeled adult stromal cells migrated to the area surrounding the stroke damage, he said. They had all of the chemical, electrical and functional properties of brain cells." -Jamie Talan, "Stem cell transplant a success," Newsday, May 12, 2004, at http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/May2004/SuccessfulRatStemCellTransplant.html.

* * * "'Cord blood stem cells have the same capacity to cure disease as do embryonic stem cells, as they can become any cell in the body...,' said Dr. William Schmidt, Jr., an oncologist with the Charleston Cancer Center in N. Charleston, SC. "'The use of umbilical cord blood stem cells in the treatment of disease is one of the most prominent advancements in medicine today. Developments in this field will revolutionize medicine and disease treatment,' said Dr. [Roger] Markwald [Professor and Chair of the Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy at the Medical University of South Carolina]."

-Press Release, "CureSource Issues Statement on Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cells," May 12, 2004, at http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/altavista/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040512005909&newsLang=en.

* * * "California scientists have found that neural stem cells can target and track deadly brain tumor cells. ...The discovery by researchers at Cedars-Sinai's Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute in Los Angeles means that neural stem cells may someday be effective 'delivery systems' to transport cancer-killing gene and immune products. ... "'We have previously demonstrated the uncanny ability of neural stem cells to seek out and destroy satellites of tumor cells in the brain,' said John S. Yu, senior author of the study and co-director of the Comprehensive Brain Tumor Program a Cedars-Sinai. '...With this knowledge, we hope to expedite the translation of this powerful and novel strategy for the clinical benefit of patients with brain tumors.'" -Press release, "Neural stem cells may help fight cancer," May 5, 2004, at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_17570.html. * * * "'We're not trying to change the [adult stem] cells in any way before we put them in the body. These are very early precursor cells. They have the potential to become almost anything, and they adapt quickly once they're inside,' said [Tulane University Center for Gene Therapy research professor Dr. Brian] Butcher. Tests on rats with damaged spines have shown that cell growth occurs in the spine [after adult stem cell injection] and allows the animals to walk again. ... "Using adult stem cells sidesteps some of the legal and ethical issues involved in using fetal...or embryonic stem cells.... And there may be other benefits as well. 'We're not against stem-cell research of any kind,' said Butcher. 'But we think there are advantages to using adult stem cells. For example, with embryonic stem cells, a significant number become cancer cells, so the cure could be worse than the disease. And they can be very difficult to grow, while adult stem cells are very easy to grow.' "But perhaps the biggest advantage to adult stem cells is that they sidestep immunological concerns because the cells used to treat a patient come from his or her own body."

-Heather Heilman, "Great Transformations," The Tulanian, Spring 2004, at http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=5155.

* * * "Had a major heart attack? In the not-too-distant future, doctors may be able to use stem cells to regenerate damaged heart muscle. And here's the exciting part: They can do it using stem cells that aren't extracted from human embryos. "[G]iven the controversy over harvesting cells from embryos, doctors have been exploring other possibilities. The payoff: A team from the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston recently repaired heart muscles in animals by injecting them with stem cells extracted from human blood. It's the stem-cell equivalent of Columbus reaching America: Not only would cells harvested from one's own body eliminate the risk that they would be rejected, but obtaining them would be a simple, painless proposition. "'This work gives us a way to get the cells that's as easy as giving a blood sample,' says Edward Yeh, M.D., lead author of the study. The real mind boggler is what the stem cells might mean to the 1.2 million Americans who suffer heart attacks each year." -Special Report, "Good news about bad things that happen to your parents," USA Weekend magazine, March 5-7, 2004, p. 6, at http://www.usaweekend.com/04_issues/040307/040307aging.html#heart. * * * 2003

"Scientists in Canada have turned adult skin cells into the building blocks of brain cells --opening the way for their use in new therapies for such incurable diseases. The discovery, by a team at the University of Toronto, is particularly exciting as it promises to provide a readily accessible and ethically neutral source of neural stem cells -- the precursors of nerve and brain tissue. "While other groups have managed to create these cells before, they have generally required the use of adult stem cells from bone marrow, which are difficult and painful to extract, or embryonic stem cells, which require the destruction of a human embryo. "If the Toronto technique is perfected for clinical use it would allow neural stem cells to be made from a patient's skin, ensuring a perfect genetic match that would not be rejected by the body. The cells would then be transplanted into the brains of people with neurological disorders, to replace, for example, the specialized dopamine neurons that are lost in Parkinson's disease." -Oliver Wright, "Patients' Own Skin Cells Turned into Potential Alzheimer's Treatment," The Times (London), December 10, 2003, Home News, p. 8.

* * * "Massachusetts General Hospital researchers have harnessed newly discovered cells from an unexpected source, the spleen, to cure juvenile diabetes in mice, a surprising breakthrough that could soon be tested in local patients and open a new chapter in diabetes research... "'This shows there might be a whole new type of therapy that we haven't tapped into,' said Dr. Denise Faustman, MGH immunology lab director and lead author of the new study, which appears today in the journal Science. 'We've figured out how to regrow an adult organ'." -R. Mishra, "Juvenile diabetes cured in lab mice," The Boston Globe, November 14, 2003, p. A2. * * * "There is now an emerging recognition that the adult mammalian brain, including that of primates and humans, harbours stem cell populations suggesting the existence of a previously unrecognised neural plasticity to the mature CNS [central nervous system], and thereby raising the possibility of promoting endogenous neural reconstruction... Since large numbers of stem cells can be generated efficiently in culture, they may obviate some of the technical and ethical limitations associated with the use of fresh (primary) embryonic neural tissue in current transplantation strategies." -T. Ostenfeld and C. Svendsen, "Recent advances in stem cell neurobiology," Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery, vol. 28 (2003), p. 3. * * * "Stem cells in our bone marrow usually develop into blood cells, replenishing our blood system. However, in states of emergency, the destiny of some of these stem cells may change: They can become virtually any type of cell liver cells, muscle cells, nerve cells responding to the body's needs. Prof. Tsvee Lapidot and Dr. Orit Kollet of the Weizmann Institute's Immunology Department have found how the liver, when damaged, sends a cry for help to these stem cells. 'When the liver becomes damaged, it signals to stem cells in the bone marrow, which rush to it and help in its repair as liver cells,' says Lapidot...

"The findings could lead to new insights into organ repair and transplants, especially liver-related ones. They may also uncover a whole new stock of stem cells that can under certain conditions become liver cells. Until a few years ago only embryonic stem cells were thought to possess such capabilities. Understanding how stem cells in the bone marrow turn into liver cells could one day be a great boon to liver repair as well as an alternative to the use of embryonic stem cells." -"Weizmann Institute scientists find that stem cells in the bone marrow become liver cells," EurakAlert, August 11, 2003, at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-08/wi-wis_1081103.php.

* * * I.S. Abuljadayel, Chief Scientific Officer of Tri-Stem Inc., on his study published in the July 2003 Current Medical Research and Opinion on producing pluripotent stem cells from adult blood cells:

"This new technology offers a viable option for the generation of large numbers of pluripotent stem cells. These are likely to have many clinical and research applications. The source material is blood, the most accessible tissue in our body which can be extracted by simple venipuncture or aphaeresis. The procedure raises no ethical concerns and removes the need to resort to embryos or aborted fetuses. The technology is also cost-effective, donor-friendly producing relatively large quantities of stem cells within a short time, which could eventually save patient lives and shorten patient waiting lists." -"Stem cell-like plasticity induced in mature mononuclear cells," Reuters Health, July 7, 2003.

* * * "This is an example of promising experimental therapies involving stem cells from bone marrow. Until just a few years ago, conventional wisdom held that only embryonic stem cells could turn into any cell in the body. But that thinking began to change as studies showed that stem cells from bone marrow could become heart, muscle, nerve, or liver cells. Now, the results of clinical trials conducted in Britain, Germany and Brazil show that heart patients injected with their own bone marrow cells benefit from the treatment."

-N. Touchette,"Bone Marrow Stem Cells Heal the Heart," Genome News Network, May 2, 2003, at http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_03/sc_heart.shtml * * * "Stem cells from bone marrow can transform into insulin-producing cells, scientists have shown, suggesting a future cure for diabetes... "Transplants of pancreatic cells have been tried between people, but the supplies are restricted and recipients have to take strong anti-rejection medication. Embryonic stem cells have also been converted into insulin-producing cells, but also produce immune-rejection, in addition to ethical concerns. But taking bone marrow cells from a patient, developing them into beta cells and then reimplanting them would have none of these difficulties. Also, much of the technology for bone marrow transplantation is already well developed, says study leader Mehboob Hussain, at the New York University School of Medicine. "'I am absolutely excited by the potential applications of our findings,' he said. 'In our body, there is an additional, easily available source of cells that are capable of becoming insulin-producing cells.'" -S. Bhattacharya, "Bone marrow experiments suggest diabetes cure," NewScientist.com News Service, March 17, 2003, at http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993508. * * * 2002

"The use of human embryonic stem cells has been confronted with major obstacles because of bio-ethical and political issues involved obtaining them, as well as the suggestion that embryonic stem cells may lack appropriate developmental instructions, making them potentially less feasible for engrafting into adult tissue... "As compared to embryonic stem cells, adult derived stem cells are endowed with additional developmental instructions and may be better suited for therapeutic purposes. According to [Dr. Shahin Rafii of Cornell University Medical College], 'We are approaching a day when a patient's own stem cells can be induced to divide and develop into tissue that can replace that which is diseased or destroyed, making overcrowded organ transplant lists and rejection of foreign tissues a thing of the past'." -"Mechanism For Regulation Of Adult Stem Cells Found," UniSci - Daily University Science News, May 31, 2002, at http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0531021.htm * * * On the versatility of adult hematopoietic (blood-producing) stem cells, HSCs: "[R]ecent studies have suggested that a subpopulation of HSCs may have the ability to contribute to diverse cell types such as hepatocytes, myocytes, and neuronal cells, especially following induced tissue damage... These surprising findings contradict the dogma that adult stem cells are developmentally restricted." -K. Bunting and R. Hawley, "The tao of hematopoietic stem cells: toward a unified theory of tissue regeneration," Scientific World Journal, April 10, 2002, p. 983.

* * * 2001

Commenting on a study by researchers at New York University, Yale and Johns Hopkins: "'There is a cell in the bone marrow that can serve as the stem cell for most, if not all, of the organs in the body,' says Neil Theise, M.D., Associate Professor of Pathology at NYU School of Medicine... '(t)his study provides the strongest evidence yet that the adult body harbors stem cells that are as flexible as embryonic stem cells'." -"Researchers Discover the Ultimate Adult Stem Cell," ScienceDaily Magazine, May 4, 2001, at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010504082859.htm * * * "Umbilical cords discarded after birth may offer a vast new source of repair material for fixing brains damaged by strokes and other ills, free of the ethical concerns surrounding the use of fetal tissue, researchers said Sunday."

Here is the original post:
Scientific Experts Agree Embryonic Stem Cells Are ...

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitroin an in vitro fertilization clinicand then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.

Growing cells in the laboratory is known as cell culture. Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) aregenerated by transferringcells from a preimplantation-stage embryointo a plastic laboratory culture dish that contains a nutrient broth known as culture medium. The cells divide and spread over the surface of the dish. In the original protocol, the inner surface of the culture dish was coated with mouse embryonic skin cellsspecially treated so they will not divide. This coating layer of cells is called a feeder layer. The mouse cells in the bottom of the culture dish provide the cells a sticky surface to which they can attach. Also, the feeder cells release nutrients into the culture medium. Researchers have nowdevised ways to grow embryonic stem cells without mouse feeder cells. This is a significant scientific advance because of the risk that viruses or other macromolecules in the mouse cells may be transmitted to the human cells.

The process of generating an embryonic stem cell line is somewhat inefficient, so lines are not produced each time cells from the preimplantation-stage embryo are placed into a culture dish. However, if the plated cells survive, divide and multiply enough to crowd the dish, they are removed gently and plated into several fresh culture dishes. The process of re-plating or subculturing the cells is repeated many times and for many months. Each cycle of subculturing the cells is referred to as a passage. Once the cell line is established, the original cells yield millions of embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells that have proliferated in cell culture for for a prolonged period of time without differentiating, and are pluripotentare referred to as an embryonic stem cell line. At any stage in the process, batches of cells can be frozen and shipped to other laboratories for further culture and experimentation.

At various points during the process of generating embryonic stem cell lines, scientists test the cells to see whether they exhibit the fundamental properties that make them embryonic stem cells. This process is called characterization.

Scientists who study human embryonic stem cells have not yet agreed on a standard battery of tests that measure the cells' fundamental properties. However, laboratories that grow human embryonic stem cell lines use several kinds of tests, including:

As long as the embryonic stem cells in culture are grown under appropriate conditions, they can remain undifferentiated (unspecialized). But if cells are allowed to clump together to form embryoid bodies, they begin to differentiate spontaneously. They can form muscle cells, nerve cells, and many other cell types. Although spontaneous differentiation is a good indication that a culture of embryonic stem cells is healthy, it is not an efficient way to produce cultures of specific cell types.

So, to generate cultures of specific types of differentiated cellsheart muscle cells, blood cells, or nerve cells, for examplescientists try to control the differentiation of embryonic stem cells. They change the chemical composition of the culture medium, alter the surface of the culture dish, or modify the cells by inserting specific genes. Through years of experimentation, scientists have established some basic protocols or "recipes" for the directed differentiation of embryonic stem cells into some specific cell types (Figure 1). (For additional examples of directed differentiation of embryonic stem cells, refer to the NIH stem cell report available at http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/pages/2006report.aspx.)

Figure 1. Directed differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells. Click here for larger image. ( 2008 Terese Winslow)

If scientists can reliably direct the differentiation of embryonic stem cells into specific cell types, they may be able to use the resulting, differentiated cells to treat certain diseases in the future. Diseases that might be treated by transplanting cells generated from human embryonic stem cells include diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and vision and hearing loss.

Previous|III. What are embryonic stem cells?|Next

View post:
What are embryonic stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]

Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells

The term cloning is used by scientists to describe many different processes that involve making duplicates of biological material. In most cases, isolated genes or cells are duplicated for scientific study, and no new animal results. The experiment that led to the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997 was different: It used a cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer and resulted in an animal that was a genetic twin -- although delayed in time -- of an adult sheep. This technique can also be used to produce an embryo from which cells called embryonic stem (ES) cells could be extracted to use in research into potential therapies for a wide variety of diseases.

Thus, in the past five years, much of the scientific and ethical debate about somatic cell nuclear transfer has focused on its two potential applications: 1) for reproductive purposes, i.e., to produce a child, or 2) for producing a source of ES cells for research.

The technique of transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg that produced Dolly was an extension of experiments that had been ongoing for over 40 years. In the simplest terms, the technique used to produce Dolly the sheep - somatic cell nuclear transplantation cloning - involves removing the nucleus of an egg and replacing it with the diploid nucleus of a somatic cell. Unlike sexual reproduction, during which a new organism is formed when the genetic material of the egg and sperm fuse, in nuclear transplantation cloning there is a single genetic "parent." This technique also differs from previous cloning techniques because it does not involve an existing embryo. Dolly is different because she is not genetically unique; when born she was genetically identical to an existing six-year-old ewe. Although the birth of Dolly was lauded as a success, in fact, the procedure has not been perfected and it is not yet clear whether Dolly will remain healthy or whether she is already experiencing subtle problems that might lead to serious diseases. Thus, the prospect of applying this technique in humans is troubling for scientific and safety reasons in addition to a variety of ethical reasons related to our ideas about the natural ordering of family and successive generations.

Several important concerns remain about the science and safety of nuclear transfer cloning using adult cells as the source of nuclei. To date, five mammalian species -- sheep, cattle, pigs, goats, and mice -- have been used extensively in reproductive cloning studies. Data from these experiments illustrate the problems involved. Typically, very few cloning attempts are successful. Many cloned animals die in utero, even at late stages or soon after birth, and those that survive frequently exhibit severe birth defects. In addition, female animals carrying cloned fetuses may face serious risks, including death from cloning-related complications.

An additional concern focuses on whether cellular aging will affect the ability of somatic cell nuclei to program normal development. As somatic cells divide they progressively age, and there is normally a defined number of cell divisions that can occur before senescence. Thus, the health effects for the resulting liveborn, having been created with an "aged" nucleus, are unknown. Recently it was reported that Dolly has arthritis, although it is not yet clear whether the five-and-a-half-year-old sheep is suffering from the condition as a result of the cloning process. And, scientists in Tokyo have shown that cloned mice die significantly earlier than those that are naturally conceived, raising an additional concern that the mutations that accumulate in somatic cells might affect nuclear transfer efficiency and lead to cancer and other diseases in offspring. Researchers working with clones of a Holstein cow say genetic programming errors may explain why so many cloned animals die, either as fetuses or newborns.

The announcement of Dolly sparked widespread speculation about a human child being created using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Much of the perceived fear that greeted this announcement centered on the misperception that a child or many children could be produced who would be identical to an already existing person. This fear is based on the idea of "genetic determinism" -- that genes alone determine all aspects of an individual -- and reflects the belief that a person's genes bear a simple relationship to the physical and psychological traits that compose that individual. Although genes play an essential role in the formation of physical and behavioral characteristics, each individual is, in fact, the result of a complex interaction between his or her genes and the environment within which he or she develops. Nonetheless, many of the concerns about cloning have focused on issues related to "playing God," interfering with the natural order of life, and somehow robbing a future individual of the right to a unique identity.

Several groups have concluded that reproductive cloning of human beings creates ethical and scientific risks that society should not tolerate. In 1997, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that it was morally unacceptable to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning and suggested that a moratorium be imposed until safety of this technique could be assessed. The commission also cautioned against preempting the use of cloning technology for purposes unrelated to producing a liveborn child.

Similarly, in 2001 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report stating that the United States should ban human reproductive cloning aimed at creating a child because experience with reproductive cloning in animals suggests that the process would be dangerous for the woman, the fetus, and the newborn, and would likely fail. The report recommended that the proposed ban on human cloning should be reviewed within five years, but that it should be reconsidered "only if a new scientific review indicates that the procedures are likely to be safe and effective, and if a broad national dialogue on societal, religious and ethical issues suggests that reconsideration is warranted." The panel concluded that the scientific and medical considerations that justify a ban on human reproductive cloning at this time do not apply to nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells. Several other scientific and medical groups also have stated their opposition to the use of cloning for the purpose of producing a child.

The cloning debate was reopened with a new twist late in 1998, when two scientific reports were published regarding the successful isolation of human stem cells. Stem cells are unique and essential cells found in animals that are capable of continually reproducing themselves and renewing tissue throughout an individual organism's life. ES cells are the most versatile of all stem cells because they are less differentiated, or committed, to a particular function than adult stem cells. These cells have offered hope of new cures to debilitating and even fatal illness. Recent studies in mice and other animals have shown that ES cells can reduce symptoms of Parkinson's disease in mouse models, and work in other animal models and disease areas seems promising.

In the 1998 reports, ES cells were derived from in vitro embryos six to seven days old destined to be discarded by couples undergoing infertility treatments, and embryonic germ (EG) cells were obtained from cadaveric fetal tissue following elective abortion. A third report, appearing in the New York Times, claimed that a Massachusetts biotechnology company had fused a human cell with an enucleated cow egg, creating a hybrid clone that failed to progress beyond an early stage of development. This announcement served as a reminder that ES cells also could be derived from embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning. In fact, several scientists believed that deriving ES cells in this manner is the most promising approach to developing treatments because the condition of in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos stored over time is questionable and this type of cloning could overcome graft-host responses if resulting therapies were developed from the recipient's own DNA.

For those who believe that the embryo has the moral status of a person from the moment of conception, research or any other activity that would destroy it is wrong. For those who believe the human embryo deserves some measure of respect, but disagree that the respect due should equal that given to a fully formed human, it could be considered immoral not to use embryos that would otherwise be destroyed to develop potential cures for disease affecting millions of people. An additional concern related to public policy is whether federal funds should be used for research that some Americans find unethical.

Since 1996, Congress has prohibited researchers from using federal funds for human embryo research. In 1999, DHHS announced that it intended to fund research on human ES cells derived from embryos remaining after infertility treatments. This decision was based on an interpretation "that human embryonic stem cells are not a human embryo within the statutory definition" because "the cells do not have the capacity to develop into a human being even if transferred to the uterus, thus their destruction in the course of research would not constitute the destruction of an embryo." DHHS did not intend to fund research using stem cells derived from embryos created through cloning, although such efforts would be legal in the private sector.

In July 2001, the House of Representatives voted 265 to 162 to make any human cloning a criminal offense, including cloning to create an embryo for derivation of stem cells rather than to produce a child. In August 2002, President Bush, contending with a DHHS decision made during the Clinton administration, stated in a prime-time television address that federal support would be provided for research using a limited number of stem cell colonies already in existence (derived from leftover IVF embryos). Current bills before Congress would ban all forms of cloning outright, prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes, and impose a moratorium on cloning to derive stem cells for research, or prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes while allowing cloning for therapeutic purposes to go forward. As of late June, the Senate has taken no action. President Bush's Bioethics Council is expected to recommend the prohibition of reproductive cloning and a moratorium on therapeutic cloning later this summer.

Prepared by Kathi E. Hanna, M.S., Ph.D., Science and Health Policy Consultant

Last Reviewed: April 2006

The rest is here:
Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells - Genome.gov

by Yoel Jakobovits

With one spectacular development tumbling over the next in ever more rapid succession, our generation is witnessing the compression of history in the scientific and medical realm just as much as in the geopolitical realm. Indeed, it may well be that in the long term, the direction of humanity and its history ultimately will be affected more profoundly by these scientific and medical developments than even by the current unprecedented global political upheavals.

Medical ethics concentrates largely on the opposite ends of life. For example, the beginning of life questions relate principally to abortion, contraception and conception issues even before birth. At the other end of life, inquiries relate to the management of dying, the moment of death, autopsies and organ harvesting even before death...

This article outlines the essential medical facts pertaining to stem cell Research and therapy, and summarizes the principal approaches in Jewish law which have been proposed thus far. Clearly, given the novelty of these innovations, both the medical and scientific questions as well as Jewish legal answers are in flux, and must be tentative at this point in time.

WHAT ARE STEM CELLS?

Every discussion of medical ethics must be governed by the axiom: good ethics -- and good Jewish law -- require good facts.

All the various parts of a plant or tree -- the trunk, branches, leaves and fruits -- develop from the stem. Similarly, all the cells of a living organism develops from precursor cells, known as stem cells.

Mammalian development begins with the union of a male's sperm cell with a female's egg. The resultant cell has the inherent potential to develop into the entire gamut of cells forming the organism. This prime cell divides, within several hours of fertilization, into two identical duplicate cells, each of which retains this broad potential. After several more divisions, by about the fourth day, these cells began to specialize, forming a hollow sphere called a blastocyte, which is composed of an outer and inner layer of cells. Cells of the outer layer are destined to form the placenta and other supporting tissues of pregnancy. The inner layer cells go on to develop into all of the organs and tissues of the developing fetus.

These cells are now somewhat more limited in their potential -- they can give rise to many but not all the types of cells necessary for fetal development. As stem cells "mature" their potential to develop into any kind of human tissue decreases. Soon after, these stem cells undergo further specialization (called differentiation), becoming cells committed to developing into a given line of cells.

Ultimately stem cells develop into "master cells," designed to multiply into specific tissue types. For example, blood stem cells will develop into the various types of blood cells; skin stem cells into the various types of skin cells. Once they reach this level of specialization, they're committed to developing specific tissues.

The cells related to developing the blood are the best understood stem cells. They reside in the bone marrow of all children and adults, and are, in fact, usually present in very small numbers in the circulating blood stream as well. Because red and white cells in the peripheral blood have limited life spans, the stem cells are crucial to maintaining an adequate blood supply in the healthy person...

WHERE ARE STEM CELLS?

At present there several sources of stem cells:

- Early human embryos. In general these embryos are developed as a result of couples using in vitro fertilization to conceive a child. The union of sperm and eggs in a petri dish produces many embryos. Implementing them all into the mother's uterus would freeze and a grave danger to her because of the multiple fetuses she would have to carry. Therefore, only a few are implanted; the remaining are leftover or spare. These pre-implanted embryos are a widely used source of stem cells.

- Tissue obtained from aborted fetuses.

- Cells obtained from the umbilical cord.

- Using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), an adult cell's gene-containing nucleus can be combined with an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. Using special techniques, the resultant cell can be induced to divide and develop as an early stem cell to form a blastocyte from which very potent cells can be obtained. This is the basis of cloning.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Why isolate and develop pluripotent stem cells, that is, stem cells that have the ability to become any human tissue? At the most fundamental level, stem cell research will help enormously in understanding the complex events of early mammalian development. Secondly, such research could dramatically change the way in which drugs are developed and tested. Specific healthy and diseased cell lines could be exposed to specific drugs, largely obviating the need for much more dangerous and expensive human testing.

The most far-reaching applications would come in the area of cell therapies. Thousands of people are on waiting lists for organ transplants. Because the supply of donors is much smaller than the number of waiting patients, many patients will die of their illnesses before suitable donors can be found... Ultimately it is hoped that stem cells could be stimulated to develop into a source of replacement cells to create banks of transplantable human tissue. There is already reason to believe that this will be possible in replenishing the diseased or absent brain cells caused by Parkinson's or Alzheimer's diseases, strokes, spinal cord injuries, various heart diseases, diabetes, and arthritis.

JEWISH LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

We begin the outline of the Jewish legal approach to stem cell research by stressing some general overarching principles. In contrast with other religions, Judaism has no problem with "playing God," provided we do so according to His rules as expressed by authentic Jewish legal mandate. Far from being shunned, "playing God" in the Jewish tradition is, in fact, a religious imperative: the concept of emulating God is implicit in the mandate to heal and provide effective medical relief wherever possible. Of note, the only two "professions" ascribed to God Himself are those of teaching and healing. By teaching and/or healing, we fulfill the obligation to "play God." There's no reason that microscopic manipulation of a faulty genetic blueprint should be any different than surgical manipulation of a defective macroscope -- that is, visible to the unaided eye -- tissue or organ. Normative Jewish law sanctions -- nay, encourages -- medical intervention to correct both congenital and acquired defects, and makes no distinction between stem and somatic (body) cell tissues.

The crucial distinction here is between the permissible act of correcting a defect and the forbidden act of attempting to improve on God's creations (generally proscribed by the laws of cross-breeding). For example, it would be permitted, were it possible, to correct the genetic defect which leads to Down's syndrome, but manipulating genes to produce a "perfect-bodied" six-footer with blue eyes would be prohibited.

There would, therefore, be no Jewish legal problem with using stem cells derived from adult tissue. Similarly, it would appear that using cells from umbilical cord tissue would be permissible. A rather minor concern here might be the following: May one have umbilical tissue collected and frozen so that the cells will be available in case one requires stem cell therapy sometime in the future? Is this degree of effort, in trying to ensure one's health, appropriate or excessive?

While there are few Jewish legal objections to deriving the stem cells from adult or umbilical cord tissue, the problems arise, however, with deriving stem cells from the embryonic tissue.

Post-implantation embryonic tissue (that is an embryo already implanted into the uterine wall) is after all, an early fetus; clearly no sanction would be given to aborting a fetus in order to obtain stem cell tissue. Even were fetal tissue necessary to provide life-sustaining therapy for a patient, no sanction would be given to sacrifice an innocent fetus even in the interest of saving another life. The only exception to this rule is the obligation to forfeit the life of the "non-innocent" fetus when its continued existence constitutes a danger to its mother by virtue of the fetus's pursuer ("rodef") status.

Even fetal life before the 40th day of gestation -- which is considered "mere water" -- could not be aborted in order to obtain stem cell tissue. Prior to 40 days, a miscarried fetus does not trigger birth-related purity issues, and therefore is of lesser status than a more mature fetus. (There is a large body of rabbinical writings regarding the 40-day status of a fetus.)...

TOWARD THE FUTURE

The prime source of embryonic stem cell tissue is embryos that have not been implanted into the uterine wall. As discussed above, they are usually the "by-products," spare embryos left aside during in vitro fertilization in order not to dangerously overload the mother's uterus. The Jewish legal status of these spare, non-implanted embryos is somewhat unclear. Some rabbinical opinions suggest that in addition to the 40-day milestone, an embryo doesn't reach fetal status until it is implanted into the uterus. Prior to that, while still in a petri dish, or other artificial medium, it cannot develop into a viable fetus. Therefore such early embryos have no real life potential at all and they're not considered alive. Consequently, there would be no Jewish legal opposition to disposing of them, researching on them, or deriving stem cell tissue from them.

The status of pre-implantation embryos has another potentially important Jewish legal consequence. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) offers a promising approach to prevent the birth of genetically defective children. By studying embryos before implantation into the uterus, it is possible to identify those defective genes. By selecting only genetically intact embryos for implantation, the development of genetically defective fetuses would be avoided. Assuming the pre-implanted embryo has not reached the level of a fetus, Jewish legal sanction may be possible.

The ethical issues raised by stem cell research and therapy are, of course, not only of interest to Jews. In an unprecedented national broadcast, President Bush defined some fairly restrictive regulations. Just recently the administration argued strongly in favor of banning all research into human cloning. Evidently the crossroads of medical science and the generation of life itself raises fears and genuine concern in the minds of many thinking people.

It appears that Jewish legal concerns may be more permissive than is generally understood. Clearly, it behooves us, as Jews, to avail ourselves of whatever Torah and scientific knowledge we can -- not only as we try to find the Jewish legal guidance for ourselves, but perhaps equally importantly -- as we strive to fulfill our national mandate to be a Light Unto the Nations -- to help shed light on these vexing issues for society at large.

The author is on the staff of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, MD.

Article reprinted with permission from Jewish Action magazine (Summer 2002), published by the Orthodox Union http://www.ou.org.

Presented in cooperation with Heritage House, Jerusalem. Visit http://www.innernet.org.il.

Continued here:
Judaism and Stem Cell Research - Torah.org

While some researchers still claim that embryonic stem cells (ESCs) offer the best hope for treating many debilitating diseases, there is now a great deal of evidence contrary to that theory. Use of stem cells obtained by destroying human embryos is not only unethical but presents many practical obstacles as well.

"Major roadblocks remain before human embryonic stem cells could be transplanted into humans to cure diseases or replace injured body parts, a research pioneer said Thursday night. University of Wisconsin scientist James Thomson said obstacles include learning how to grow the cells into all types of organs and tissue and then making sure cancer and other defects are not introduced during the transplantation. 'I don't want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it's going to be very hard,' Thomson told the Wisconsin Newspaper Association's annual convention at the Kalahari Resort in this Wisconsin Dells town. 'Ultimately, those transplation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time.'....Thomson cautioned such breakthroughs are likely decades away."

-Associated Press reporter Ryan J. Foley "Stem cell pioneer warns of roadblocks before cures," San Jose Mercury News Online, posted on Feb. 8, 2007, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16656570.htm

***

"Although embryonic stem cells have the broadest differentiation potential, their use for cellular therapeutics is excluded for several reasons: the uncontrollable development of teratomas in a syngeneic transplantation model, imprinting-related developmental abnormalities, and ethical issues."

-Gesine Kgler et al., "A New Human Somatic Stem Cell from Placental Cord Blood with Intrinsic Pluripotent Differentiation Potential," Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. 200, No. 2 (July 19, 2004), p. 123.

***

From a major foundation promoting research in pancreatic islet cells and other avenues for curing juvenile diabetes:

"Is the use of embryonic stem cells close to being used to provide a supply of islet cells for transplantation into humans?

"No. The field of embryonic stem cells faces enormous hurtles to overcome before these cells can be used in humans. The two key challenges to overcome are making the stem cells differentiate into specific viable cells consistently, and controlling against unchecked cell division once transplanted. Solid data of stable, functioning islet cells from embryonic stems cells in animals has not been seen."

Follow this link:
Practical Problems with Embryonic Stem Cells

Legal Policy Report

No. 17 September 2013

The FDAs Misguided Regulation of Stem-Cell Procedures:

How Administrative Overreach Blocks Medical Innovation

Richard A. Epstein, Visiting Scholar, Manhattan Institute

Executive Summary

The current biomedical revolution has its most tangible application to ordinary people in the new cutting-edge techniques devised by individual physicians for the cure and palliation of chronic and degenerative diseases. The rate of advance in this area is a testimony to the creative forces unleashed by the decentralized control over medical procedures. But that progress is now threatened by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which seeks to extend its statutory authority to subject these practices to the same oversight that is given to large drug manufacturers in the design and production of new products for the mass market. One area over which the FDA has asserted its power is private adult stem-cell treatment, which has developed treatment protocols that were not possible a generation, or even a decade, ago.

The FDA has taken the aggressive position that it has oversight authority over any stem-cell procedure that reinjects harvested stem cells into the same person from whom they were removed, so long as those cells were grown and cultured outside the human body. Indeed, one promising use of this technique for heart-attack patients was scuttled after the FDA stepped in to require extensive clinical trials over a hospital that could not afford the high costs of FDA compliance. It is unclear how many promising similar avenues have been shut off by physicians who were unwilling to run the FDA gauntlet of initial approval and constant oversight to bring their techniques to the market in the United States without risk of regulatory censure. But two physicians utilizing one such approach are now challenging in federal court the FDAs authority to regulateand effectively prohibitthe use of adult stem cells to mitigate the effects of one widespread malady: degenerative joint conditions, including those caused by sports injuries.

Read more:
The FDAs Misguided Regulation of Stem-Cell Procedures ...

In the U.S., the debate about embryonic stem cell research has centered on whether human embryos should be used for research. It has left nearly untouched a number of important social, political and ethical issues unrelated to the moral status of embryos. Among these are: (1) ensuring the health and safety of research subjects, including women who provide eggs for research; (2) preventing the emergence of a commercial market in womens eggs; (3) establishing appropriate oversight and regulation of stem cell research.

Background

Currently, most researchers working to produce human embryonic stem cells use embryos that were created but not used during vitro fertilization procedures. Some scientists are attempting to use another technique, known as research cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT involves merging an adult body cell with an egg whose nuclei has been removed to create specialized stem cell lines. The process requires a large number of womens eggs. In order to procure eggs, researchers typically give women hormonal treatments to first shut down and then hyper-stimulate their ovaries, followed by surgical extraction of multiple eggs. This is a time-consuming and invasive process associated with potentially serious health problems.

Key Concerns

Its Still Early

Treatments based on embryonic stem cells and SCNT are at an early stage of development, and are still hypothetical. Therefore, multiple egg extraction poses risks to womens health without a clear and demonstrated benefit to scientific advance.

Financial Incentives

Offering payment beyond direct expenses would commercialize reproductive material and create a market for human eggs, which could lead to the exploitation of women.

Lack of Regulation

The U.S. has no federal legislation prohibiting the misuse of human embryos (such as efforts to produce a cloned or genetically modified child), and a patchwork of unclear and inconsistent regulations addressing embryonic stem cell research.

See more here:
CGS : Egg Extraction For Stem Cell Research: Issues for ...

Gordie Howes Treatment Raises Source of Stem Cells Issues

The Detroit News is reporting on a controversy surrounding the stem cells used to treat NHL legend Gordie Howe. Howe suffered a stroke on October 26, 2014 and was in declining health. He received stem cell treatment in December, and family members share that his condition has improved a great deal.

The source of the controversy is that the company behind the treatments, Stemedica, didnt initially reveal some of the stem cells came from an aborted fetus.

The paper adds that Dave McGuigan a VP at Stemedica told The Detroit News and other media in February that only adult stem cells were used in the injections Howe received at a clinic in Mexico. However, in a separate investigation, Stemedica told USA Today that some of the stem cells used for Gordie Howe were from a fetus that was aborted at approximately 15 weeks.

When interviewed by USA Today, Stemedicas President, Maynard Howe (not related to Gordie Howe) stated, We just dont want to get people confused about what it is. Theyre really considered legally adult stem cells even if theyre fetal-derived.

While legal definitions may permit Stemedicas position, there are moral and ethical issues as well as matters of law. It is crucial that medical and stem cell providers be clear about the sources and types of stem cells being used. If the information reported by The Detroit News is correct, we view this as a significant breach of trust and ethical conduct. We simply think more is required.

We believe as a matter of faith that life begins at conception. We recognize that many of clients have religious and ethical concerns of their own, and we try to respect them in all we do. Consequently, Soter Healthcare has a specific agreement with our stem cell medical providers at both the lab and the hospitals, to use only Respect for Life Stem Cells. This is our assurance that no stem cells derived from abortion in any form will be used. We believe this is the only contract of its kind in effect today. The fetal cells we obtain and use come following miscarriage, stillbirths or premature infant mortality. To make sure there are no safety issues for a patient, all stem cells are checked and rechecked to make sure they are disease and infection free before treatments.

Being true to our convictions and making sure you always know the type and source of stem cells used in your treatment is how we do business. Anything less is unacceptable.

Read more here:
Gordie Howe's Stem Cell Treatment Raises Issues

The Promise of Stem Cell Research

Human pluripotent stem cells are a unique scientific and medical resource. In 1998, scientists at the University of Wisconsin and at Johns Hopkins University isolated and successfully cultured human pluripotent stem cells. The pluripotent stem cells were derived using non-Federal funds from early-stage embryos donated voluntarily by couples undergoing fertility treatment in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic or from non-living fetuses obtained from terminated first trimester pregnancies. Informed consent was obtained from the donors in both cases. Women voluntarily donating fetal tissue for research did so only after making the decision to terminate the pregnancy.

Because pluripotent stem cells give rise to almost all of the cells types of the body, such as muscle, nerve, heart, and blood, they hold great promise for both research and health care. This advance in human biology continues to generate enthusiasm among scientists, patients suffering from a broad range of diseases, including cancer, heart disease and diabetes, and their families. For example, further research using human pluripotent stem cells may help:

Questions have been raised about the usefulness of adult stem cells in research and treatment, especially as compared to pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos or fetal tissue. Indeed, there is enormous potential for research using such cells. Human adult stem cells have been isolated from tissues such as blood, brain, intestine, skin, and muscle. Furthermore, some adult stem cells have been shown to be more "plastic" than first thoughtthat is, some of these stem cells appear to be capable of developing into different kinds of cells than first predicted.

There is, however, considerable evidence that adult stem cells may have limited potential compared to pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos or fetal tissue. Human adult stem cells have not yet been isolated from all cell and tissue types, and they have not been shown to be capable of developing into all of the different cell and tissue types of the body. Furthermore, adult stem cells are difficult to obtain, since they are often present in only minute quantities. They are difficult to isolate and purify, and their numbers appear to decrease with age. Moreover, adult stem cells may have more DNA damage, and they appear to have a shorter life span than pluripotent stem cells. For all of these reasons, and because of the enormous potential of stem cell approaches to research and treatment, it is vitally important that scientists study and compare both pluripotent and adult stem cells.

The NIH is prohibited from using any appropriated funds for "... (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b))." Because of the enormous potential of human pluripotent stem cells to medical research, the NIH asked the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to determine whether research utilizing pluripotent stem cells is permissible under existing Federal law governing embryo and fetal tissue research. After careful consideration, the DHHS concluded that because human pluripotent cells are not embryos, current Federal law does not prohibit DHHS funds from being used for research utilizing these cells.

Recognizing the ethical and legal issues surrounding human pluripotent stem cell research and the need for stringent oversight of this class of researchoversight that goes beyond the traditional rigorous NIH scientific peer review processthe NIH issued a moratorium on the funding of this research until Guidelines could be developed and an oversight process could be implemented.

In April 1999, the NIH convened a working group of the Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), NIH, to provide advice to the ACD relevant to guidelines and oversight for this research. The working group met in public session and included scientists, clinicians, ethicists, lawyers, patients, and patient advocates. During their deliberations, the group considered advice from the National Bioethics Commission, the public, and scientists. Draft guidelines for this research were published for public comment, and, after reviewing and considering all comments received, the NIH Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells (NIH Guidelines) were published in the Federal Register and became effective on August 25, 2000. (Because the NIH Guidelines contained a few incorrect citations and other minor errors, a notice of correction (65 FR 69951) was published on November 21, 2000.) The revised NIH Guidelines and other information about stem cell research can be found at the URL: /news/pages/default.aspx.

The purpose of the NIH Guidelines is to set forth procedures to help ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is conducted in an ethical and legal manner. By issuing these Guidelines, the NIH aims to enhance both the scientific and ethical oversight of this important arena of research and the pace at which scientists can explore its many promises. These Guidelines will encourage openness, provide appropriate Federal oversight, help make certain that all researchers can make use of these critical research tools, and help assure full public access to the practical medical benefits of research using these cells.

The Guidelines prescribe the documentation and assurances that must accompany requests for NIH funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells derived from human embryos or fetal tissue. These include the following:

Read the original:
NIH Fact Sheet on Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research ...

What have been the latest developments in the stem cell controversy?

Political pressure to expand the level of government-funded stem cell research has increased amid ongoing reports of the potential medical efficacy of such treatments. Congress passed legislation authorizing such expansion but President Bush vetoed the legislation based his religious convictions. There is some indication from scientific advances of the improved potential of non-embryonic stem cells.

The medical possibilities which might result from stem cell research continues to excite the scientific community. There are some indications that progress is being made in developing alternatives to the use of embryos in pursuing this technology. If this happens, most political/ethical concerns regarding the matter will be resolved. The competitive aspects of this research were evidence by recent revelations that a South Korean scientist had faked research that had purported replicated individual DNA.

The stem cell controversy is an issue in the 2008 Presidential campaign in part because of the recent death of former President Ronald Reagan from Alzheimer's disease. Some of his family members have been vocal advocates of the potential of stem cell research to provide treatments for such conditions and his son spoke at the Democratic convention on the subject. Recent polls indicate that the research proposals have widespread public support even among Republican voters. Voters in California recently approved a ballot measure to establish a public funded stem cell research program in that state. As in past election years, the 2008 Democratic platform supports funding this research. The 2008 Republican platform continues to reflect the party's religious based opposition to embryonic stem cell research. There are indications that some European and Asian countries have the green light to actively pursue this research.

On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order removing the restriction on federal funding for newer stem cell lines. Researchers are still limited by budget language prohibiting federal funding for research involving destroyed or discarded embryos. But researchers can use federal funds on new lines which had been created with private funds or state funding.

What are "stem cells"?

For purposes of the current controversy, these cells are known as "pluripotent stem cells". These are specialized cells which are formed at the very beginning stages of human embryo development and are part of what is known as a blastocyst (see illustration). These cells are unique because at this stage in development they are not specialized and have the capacity to develop into 130 different human tissue types.

Why are these stem cells important to medical scientists?

Although research is only in the early stages, there is a growing consensus among researchers that many very effective medical treatments can be realized through cloning stem cells. This is because these cells can be made to replicate specific human tissues. These cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissue to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. There is almost no realm of medicine that might not be touched by this innovation.

How are stem cells obtained?

See the original post:
Stem Cell Research - Newsbatch

Global Stem Cells Group has announced plans to participate in the 15th International Congress of Aesthetic Medicine in Boca Del Rio, Veracruz July 9-12, 2015. Charles Mahl, M.D. and David B. Audley will represent GSCG as keynote speakers

MIAMI (PRWEB) June 16, 2015

Charles Mahl, M.D. and David B. Audley will represent Global Stem Cells Group, Inc. as keynote speakers at the 15th International Congress of Aesthetic Surgery in Boca del Rio in Veracruz, Mexico July 9-12, 2015. Mahl, a member of the Global Stem Cells Group Scientific Advisory Board, and Audley, the chairman and general secretary of the Regentech Alliance (RTA), will join more than 1,500 aesthetic surgeons and specialists in the fields of anti-aging and regenerative medicine from around the globe for the four day event.

Hosted by the Instituto de Estudios Superiores en Medicina (Institute of Advanced Studies in Medicine) in Veracruz, conference attendees will include an international lineup of physicians and medical practitioners in a variety of disciplines who will gather to discuss the newest therapies, protocols and innovative procedures available in aesthetic medicine.

Mahl, who maintains an active practice in regenerative medicine, preventive aging and pain therapies, will bring his expertise in prolotherapy, platelet rich plasma injections and stem cell therapies to the conference. Audley is a pioneer in the field of regenerative medicine and the founding executive director of the International Cellular Medicine Society (ICMS), the first professional medical association dedicated to the development of standards and accreditation for medical facilities engaged in cell-based therapies.

The conference will feature workshops in botulinum toxin applications for beginners and advanced students, and peeling treatments for stretch marks. Some of the topics to be addressed at the event include updates in aesthetic surgery, regenerative medicine therapies, platelet rich plasma applications, clinical and therapeutic stem cell applications, facial fillings, COFEPRIS guidelines, legal issues associated with aesthetic surgery and more.

The conference will take place at the Hotel Galerias Plaza Veracruz, Blvd. Adolfo Ruiz Cortines #3495, Costa Verde, Boca Del Ro, Veracruz. For more information on the 15th International Congress of Aesthetic Surgery, visit the Global Stem Cells Group website, email bnovas(at)stemcellsgroup(dot)com or call 305-224-1858.

About Global Stem Cell Group:

Global Stem Cells Group, Inc. is the parent company of six wholly owned operating companies dedicated entirely to stem cell research, training, products and solutions. Founded in 2012, the company combines dedicated researchers, physician and patient educators and solution providers with the shared goal of meeting the growing worldwide need for leading edge stem cell treatments and solutions. With a singular focus on this exciting new area of medical research, Global Stem Cells Group and its subsidiaries are uniquely positioned to become global leaders in cellular medicine.

About Charles Mahl, M.D.:

Visit link:
Global Stem Cells Group to Participate in the 15th ...