No Embryos Lost to New Stem Cells (moral, blood, America)

[michel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4348920.stm Hope over stem cell ethical fears

Stem cells can be programmed to become many kinds of tissue
US scientists say they have developed a way of harvesting stem cells without destroying the embryo they grow in.
The Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology removed embryonic stem cells from mice embryos with no apparent damage, the journal Nature said.
Scientists believe it would sidestep some of the ethical objections to stem cell research if repeated in humans.

But campaigners said they still had concerns and urged scientists to concentrate on other areas.

Stem cells are "master" cells that can become many kinds of tissue.

Those harvested from early-stage human embryos are thought to hold the most potential for research, as they have the ability to become almost any kind of adult cell in the body.

Stem cells from adult tissue have some, but not all of this ability.

I think scientists would be far better to concentrate on other areas of stem cell research such as amniotic and adult stem cells which show far more promise

But Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics
However, use of embryonic stem cells is opposed by many on the grounds that it involves destroying an embryo.

Lead researcher Robert Lanza, of Advanced Cell Technology, said the new technique could allow scientists to create a bank of personal cells for children before they are born to treat diseases later in life.

And he added it might provide a way of diffusing the row over the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.

"The most basic objection to embryonic stem cell research is the fact that embryos are deprived of any further potential to develop into a complete human being.

"We have shown in a mouse model that you can generate embryonic stem cells using a method that does not interfere with the developmental potential of the embryo."

In the study, researchers removed stem cells from mice embryos and then placed them in a culture where they developed into fresh colonies of master tissue.

Nearly half of the 47 embryos developed into healthy pups - broadly the same as the control group.

The study is set to be discussed at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine conference in Montreal on Monday.

Concerns

Meanwhile, a separate study in Nature by a team at the US Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research is also being touted as another way round the ethical concerns.

By modifying DNA, researchers were able to create an embryo in mice trials which could never develop in the womb but could still be used to get stem cells.

The scientists said the embryo could not be regarded as a potential life.

But Josephine Quintavalle, of the UK-based Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said neither technique answered their concerns.

"On the first one, there is no evidence yet that taking stem cells will not cause harm later on.

"Both still interfere with the natural process, and you have to ask why someone would want these stem cells.

"I think scientists would be far better to concentrate on other areas of stem cell research such as amniotic and adult stem cells which show far more promise."

[Victor]

Scientists say they have created viable embryonic stem cell lines without destroying any embryos — a development that could clear ethical barriers that have sharply restricted federal funding for the controversial research.

Two separate techniques were demonstrated in mice, and researchers are optimistic the processes could be replicated with human cells. The new methods were published online Sunday by the journal Nature.

Scientists and ethicists said the approaches offered a potential compromise with social conservatives who see embryonic stem cell research as an untenable trade-off that amounts to destroying life to create medical cures.

Dr. William B. Hurlbut, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, said he had persuaded several religious and conservative philosophers that at least one of the new approaches was morally sound.

But given the intractable debate about when life begins, there are lingering ethical concerns.

Continued:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/no...tonewstemcells

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

As we are subscribers to Nature magazine, I tried to find the article. Google tells me that it was published in the April 18th edition 2002 2002!!!! Where has this news been?

Forgive me, Victor, for seeming to hijack your thread, but Bush issued a campaign statement to Science Magazine in the 1 October 2004 edition that only referenced his previous decision

I remain committed to fully exploring the promise and potential of stem cell research without violating ethical principles and while maintaining respect for all human life.

To be honest, Kerry didn't know it either.

Thanks, Victor for the lead! And lets return to the topic of the thread - the good news that Bush is now giving out the news.

[Ceridwen018]

I've been following Lanza's progress, actually. I'm not sure what's in this 2002 edition of Nature, but Lanza's findings are relatively new, and as of yet quite untested. If his hypothesis is true, I think that that's great! There will be many interesting things to come of this, anyhow...

[JerryL]

Except that you can make a new embryo from the removed stem-cell. There's still a "potential baby" that you simultaniously create and destroy.

[Ceridwen018]

Good point, JerryL. I hadn't thought of that. That would also be cloning...

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Now THAT would be cloning. Hehehe a prenatal clone so if one gets sick the other is spare parts, eh? I suppose you could also say any extra blood from a test could be a new "baby", What would you have us do with that and those fingernails the manicurist cuts off? Should we have regulations for beauty salons to protect the hair they collect in the sink? The appendix the surgeon removes? Oh, and let's not forget the dentist! - imagine how many "kids" we could get from an extracted tooth.

Reductio ad absurdum.

The cell removed from the embryo never gets beyond a stem cell until it is place in a recipient and becomes an organ or helps an ailing ogan

So rather than cloning, wouldn't you like to see medicine possibly advance without harming the original embryo?

[Feathers in Hair]

Wonderful news! Thanks for posting it, Victor!

[JerryL]

The cell removed from the embryo never gets beyond a stem cell until it is place in a recipient and becomes an organ or helps an ailing ogan

Nor does an aborted, fertalized egg ever get beyond stem-cells. What's your point?