Obama lifts stem cell research ban

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

with out getting into all the scientific jargon, basically the vast majority of the cells in your body do not multiply. Cancer cells have found a way around this. In order to grow "stem cells" in vitro (in a test tube or culture plate) or in vivo (in the organism), scientists have had to give them certain growth properties similar to cancer cells so that they can evade the normal anti-growth signals that the majority of cells are exposed to.

So far those growth properties or growth signals have resulted in these stem cells becoming cancer cells. It is a huge obstacle to over come, and every scientific meeting I've been to has yet to reveal a good way to over come this, expecially in vivo. There are some things that can be done in vitro, but those things would never be allowed in people

i guess you could say im a skeptic; my point of view has nothing to do with morals, ethics or religion. It is based on 15+ years as a cancer biologist, and a well published one at that

The "clinical" aspects of stem cell research are just one tiny part of the stem cell work that is happening. Most of it is either basic research or research into disease mechanisms. As a "cancer biologist" you probably should know that. In any case, I'm all for better understanding of disease mechanisms. Science rocks.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Now I think you're confusing semantics with semetics.

Seriously, I thought you calling Catholics gods chosen ones, not just the Pope. If you think that is anti-Semetic, then you have probably never seen real bigotry. Ironically, anti-Catholicism is probably one of the most wide-spread and tolerated forms of bigotry in the English speaking world and your statement shows it more than my post shows any form of anti-Semetism. The belief in being chosen by God is a major part of the Jewish religion, so I don't see how stating such can be considered anti-Semetic.

actually, I have seen people thrown into the street, their house burned, all their animals killed and their lives threatened.......so i think I have seen enough.....

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm excited about Stem Cells, I'll finally be able to have a Boston's Pizza that I can call my own.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm excited about Stem Cells, I'll finally be able to have a Boston's Pizza that I can call my own.

Is the second one five bucks?

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The "clinical" aspects of stem cell research are just one tiny part of the stem cell work that is happening. Most of it is either basic research or research into disease mechanisms. In any case, I'm all for better understanding of disease mechanisms. Science rocks.

to the first bolded point, that is complete false. The NIH (were 95% of our funding comes from) does not fund pure basic research. Every grant application must have a translational component (ie a human or clinical application). Knowledge for the sake of knowledge has not been funded for the last 10-12 years. Hopefully that changes with the new President, but i doubt it. So far we are seeing new funds under the stimulus package, but it is all translational/clinical.

i agree fully on the 2nd bolded point. I'm educated and trained as a basic researcher in cancer mechanisms, but have had to re-invent myself and the type of research that i do to fit into the current funding environment.

[burn_baby_burn]

Unlike Canada 02, I am not a well published Cancer Biologist. So I have a question which I'm sure Canada 02 can answer. When my wife was pregnant, we were given a form to fill out about having the blood from the umbilical cord removed. Was this to keep the stem cells in a bank for future research? It was a few years ago and my memory is a little foggy on the matter.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

to the first bolded point, that is complete false. The NIH (were 95% of our funding comes from) does not fund pure basic research. Every grant application must have a translational component (ie a human or clinical application). Knowledge for the sake of knowledge has not been funded for the last 10-12 years. Hopefully that changes with the new President, but i doubt it. So far we are seeing new funds under the stimulus package, but it is all translational/clinical.

i agree fully on the 2nd bolded point. I'm educated and trained as a basic researcher in cancer mechanisms, but have had to re-invent myself and the type of research that i do to fit into the current funding environment.

Well, fair enough. My wife does basic cell/mol research, and has been funded by NIH before. It's all in how you write the grant, I guess--but I see what you mean.

In any case, research into disease mechanisms is also translational--and as I understand it, that's a pretty major thrust in stem cell research--developing models for understanding disease on a cellular level. It may not lead to "stem cell therapies" (though I've talked to people who still think that's promising) but just understanding how cells become diseased over time may itself lead to all kinds of different clinical approaches.

That's about as sophisticated as I can get with this stuff--I'm not a cancer biologist so much as a "literary scholar." I try to keep up with this stuff because of my wife.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Unlike Canada 02, I am not a well published Cancer Biologist. So I have a question which I'm sure Canada 02 can answer. When my wife was pregnant, we were given a form to fill out about having the blood from the umbilical cord removed. Was this to keep the stem cells in a bank for future research? It was a few years ago and my memory is a little foggy on the matter.

I didn't do it for my daughter either--my understanding is that it's based on the notion that in the future her stem cells can be used to cure diseases that she gets. However (as I understand it) there's not yet any evidence that this will work, and certainly no specific therapies that would use them.

So it's sort of like cryogenically freezing yourself in hopes you'll be cured in the future--except that it's your umbilical cord blood, and you're still alive. Waste of money IMO.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Unlike Canada 02, I am not a well published Cancer Biologist. So I have a question which I'm sure Canada 02 can answer. When my wife was pregnant, we were given a form to fill out about having the blood from the umbilical cord removed. Was this to keep the stem cells in a bank for future research? It was a few years ago and my memory is a little foggy on the matter.

those would be hematopoietic stem cells, not to be confused with embryonic stem cells. You already have these in your bone marrow. The idea of saving these would be in the event of a future blood or bone cancer, these cells could be used for transplantation. Some parents have also had a second child hoping the new baby could act as a donar for an existing sick child with bone cancer, leukemia or something similar

i have some technical concerns about how cord blood is banked. Hopefully there aren't any issues like with the Canadian Red Cross tainted blood scandal. This could be harder because (and i'm guessing/speculating here) multiple samples from different patients would be kept in the same cryostorage facility (a liquid nitrogen tank, i would assume). I wonder how they prevent cross contamination between samples.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm more concerned about the regulatory aspect of this, then the theological aspect of this.

This in the long run is suppossed to be the miracle cure for everything, so its going to be a for profit endeavor. I'm more concerned about how they get their source material then anything else.

I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but they are getting the stem cells from left over in vitro fertilization. So now they use what's left over for research instead of throwing them in the garbage, which is what they were doing before under the old legislation.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

It feels great to be able to crack jokes on the internet rather than being a source for stem cells in a Petri dish, doesn't it?

Just a heads up, most of the embryos used to harvest self-replicating stem cell lines come from in-vitro fertilization.

During in-vitro, after successful implantation, there are a bunch of embryos left over that aren't used and will be destroyed, as the doctors have no use for the leftovers. So instead of destroying them, they might as well use them for stem cell harvesting, as they aren't ever going to turn into a human life at that point anyways.

The main issue here is that people tie stem cell research in with fetuses and abortion. Both of which are unrelated.

[Displaced Flames fan]

There has never been a ban on stem cell research, but don't let that stop the misleading post title and subsequent replies of that vein.

There was a band on funding embryonic stem cell research with government money. Huge difference.

[LChoy]

^
Thank you!
I try to raise that point whenever I can whenever the stem cell/abortion debate is raised.
There are quite a few people in the public that believe researchers create the embryos just for experimental purposes (I'm sure it does happen for some unique circumstances) but for the most part, it's just utilizing the embryos that were going to be destroyed anyways.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I love it when people who have no idea about who they are talking to make light of their opinions and then are smacked in their face with the truth of exactly who that person is.

Absolute gold!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think you're confusing Catholics with Jews.

The Catholic Church doesn't have a lot of influence in U.S. politics anyway. They are not a predominantly Catholic country. Although, they have their fair share of Protestant and Calvinist wingnuts who will be opposed to stem cell research, it certainly won't be because of what the Pope says. Most of them dislike the Catholic Church just as much as atheists.

The thing that bugs me most about this issue is that people still don't seem to realize that there are alternative sources to stem cells than just purposely aborted embryos and a big part of the research is aimed at finding alternative sources. There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater (pun intended).

Sure, makes sense... though I'd point out I highly doubt many abortions are occurring to provide scientists with new stem cell material. My guess is that pretty much all abortions are for reasons other than stem cell research. Given how many abortions there are in the US already, there should be plenty of sample material to go around under natural social conditions; no need to 'pay women to abort', they're doing enough of that without financial incentives.

[Canada 02]

my understanding from the handful of news articles, is the ban on public funding of hESC has been lifted; however, the ban on creation of new hESC has not been lifted. That means that scientists have the 20 or so hESC lines to work on and study, but we can't create new cell lines

this is a big deal because the existing cell lines were created about 10 years ago using the knowledge and technology of that day; if we could make new cell lines, then maybe the issue of hESC becoming cancerous could be overcome by better techniques

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

those would be hematopoietic stem cells, not to be confused with embryonic stem cells. You already have these in your bone marrow. The idea of saving these would be in the event of a future blood or bone cancer, these cells could be used for transplantation. Some parents have also had a second child hoping the new baby could act as a donar for an existing sick child with bone cancer, leukemia or something similar

i have some technical concerns about how cord blood is banked. Hopefully there aren't any issues like with the Canadian Red Cross tainted blood scandal. This could be harder because (and i'm guessing/speculating here) multiple samples from different patients would be kept in the same cryostorage facility (a liquid nitrogen tank, i would assume). I wonder how they prevent cross contamination between samples.

Aren't there currently no therapies available using cord blood anyway? Maybe I'm confused, but to me the whole thing sounds like a bit of a chimera...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

There has never been a ban on stem cell research, but don't let that stop the misleading post title and subsequent replies of that vein.

There was a band on funding embryonic stem cell research with government money. Huge difference.

Well, the distinction is important, but maybe not as much as it sounds like it would be. The government is pretty much the big dog when it comes to funding research. If the government doesn't fund it, generally speaking a lot less of it happens.

Stem cell research has proceeded in a number of places, including Boston which is kind of a hotbed of it. But the limitations put on it by the Bush administration have slowed the research down quite a lot, as I understand it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, the distinction is important, but maybe not as much as it sounds like it would be. The government is pretty much the big dog when it comes to funding research. If the government doesn't fund it, generally speaking a lot less of it happens.

Stem cell research has proceeded in a number of places, including Boston which is kind of a hotbed of it. But the limitations put on it by the Bush administration have slowed the research down quite a lot, as I understand it.

I could be out to lunch with this, but weren't those restrictions in place before Bush ever took office?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

my understanding from the handful of news articles, is the ban on public funding of hESC has been lifted; however, the ban on creation of new hESC has not been lifted. That means that scientists have the 20 or so hESC lines to work on and study, but we can't create new cell lines

this is a big deal because the existing cell lines were created about 10 years ago using the knowledge and technology of that day; if we could make new cell lines, then maybe the issue of hESC becoming cancerous could be overcome by better techniques

In fact, the limit to using existing stem cell lines was the "meat" in the Bush administration's executive order--that is now gone:

Obama overturned an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/...nce/index.html

Obama has overturned the rule to the extent that he can. But if my understanding is correct, the executive order has to do with funding, not the legal status of embryos. However, apparently legislation is on the way:
http://blogs.nature.com/reports/theniche/