Quote:
Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan
I have seen an astounding number of reports that say embryonic stem cell research has produced virtually nothing and that the real fruit of stem cells lies in the research being done on 'adult' stem cells. Yet, I've seen an equal number of reports that say the exact opposite. Anyone want to take a guess at how that is possible?
But lets blame religion...it's so cut and dry.
|
Well, even though it's in the thread title, I'm not sure religion is the problem here. I think we can all agree that if creating a blastocyst in a laboratory were tantamount to creating a human being and then destroying it, we'd all be opposed to it. The problem is one of the definition of life. For me, the Christian Bible actually has very little to say on the topic of blastocysts.
I may be able to shed some light on the embryonic vs. adult stem cell debate though. It's pretty clear to anyone in the biz that both are going to be useful someday. But they have different traits.
Embryonic stem cells are completely undifferentiated. They could become any kind of cell. They can also divide ad infinitum, which makes them very useful both scientifically and therapeutically. A therapy using embryonic stem cells would in all likelihood be inexpensive to produce, because existing sources of stem cells could be used for any individual anywhere, in any part of their body. If we could prompt those cells to divide and become new neurons or nerve cells, they could in theory be recruited to sites of brain or spinal cord injury, meaning that paralyzed people could walk again, or brain-damaged people could have restore brain function. There are some encouraging results in animal studies, but--and this is important--we're pretty far from developing actual therapies. These things take time--but they'll take even longer if the Federal government refuses to fund the research.
Adult stem cells are not completely undifferentiated. They are already nerve cells, blood cells, bone marrow, etc. They are also not as good at dividing, meaning that they cannot be produced in a lab ad infinitum. However, it would probably be easier to treat nerve damage with an adult nerve stem cell, for instance, than it would be using an embryonic stem cell, assuming they too could be recruited to the site of an injury. There would be greater risks involved, and a vastly greater expense in the long run, because of the issues noted above. However, in both cases vastly more research is needed.
As for the "debate"--well, it probably has to do with government funding. Which projects government funds has a measurable effect on the scientific debate. Another example of this is studies on marijuana. The government only funds studies which attempt to find that marijuana is harmful. Therefore, most studies funded by the government find that marijuana is harmful--even though the actual data aren't that convincing. If the Federal government gets off its high horse, we may find that the research objectives of labs around the U.S. becomes more balanced.