Are you saying that a private biotech company could harvest their own stem cells any way they wanted as long as they are not using federal money to do it?

Wayner, that is correct.

Jeremy, do you have any idea about the relative research into embryonic stem cells and non-embryonic stem cells? I have read but have been unable to verify that the stem cell success thusfar has mostly been from non-embryonic stem cells and it is mostly theoretical that embryonic stem cells would produce greater results.

Wayner, Justene is correct here. I'll defer to Congressman Tom Weldon, an embryonic stem cell research opponent, who describes the situation as follows:

REP. WELDON Oh, the list is long. Let's start with many people think there are federal restrictions on embryo stem cell research. There are no federal restrictions. Any biotechnology company, any university can do it. There are no laws against it. The debate is over who is going to pay for it. Is it going to be federal taxpayer dollars? Are there are a lot of taxpayers who are not comfortable with having their tax dollars used to destroy human embryos?

Justene,

I am by no means an expert on the Science of stem cells, and my attempts to become more knowledgable about said cells have been made difficult by the unfortunate politicality of the issue. There is, however, an interesting interview with David Prentis, a molecular geneticist at Indiana State University that you can read here. It's from February of 2001, but it lays out (with some prescience to this week's debate) some of the issues surrounding stem cell research. As far as I know, there have not been any significant advances in embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. of late because, well, there's not a whole lot of money or brains behind the issue right now. It is my understanding that there are no guarantees about the success of embryonic stem cells in the future, but that the potential of undifferentiated cells is something to be harnessed, not unlike that of undecided voters, I guess...:)

I am by no means an expert on the Science of stem cells, and my attempts to become more knowledgable about said cells have been made difficult by the unfortunate politicality of the issue.

How hard is it to just look it up at the NIH?

How hard indeed? Thanks.

yep, it's no more difficult than looking up items (say, at factcheck.org) about kerry's supposed flip-flopping.

this is what i find so disappointing about most media coverage on campaign AND the voters take on it. tv sound bites just don't tell the whole story and repeated misrepresentations become 'fact'.

it's almost like willful ignorance (on both sides.)

Not hard to look it up. Just hard to get a straight answer. Look at subsection VI. Figure 4 talks about the use of adult stem cells in the heart. Then the text which refers to the figure says a recent study shows you can use adult cells or embryonic cells. Then at the end, it says that NIH has a wide array of studies into embryonic stem cells.

Those dots don't necessarily connect. Maybe there is a connection and NIH is dumbing it down for the rest of us. Or maybe NIH likes their studies and therefore, omits some things.

Most of the NIH discussion has a lot of "may" and "could" and "potential". Usually those are red flags to me. I can't tell if they should be here.

Not hard to look it up. Just hard to get a straight answer. Look at subsection VI. Figure 4 talks about the use of adult stem cells in the heart. Then the text which refers to the figure says a recent study shows you can use adult cells or embryonic cells. Then at the end, it says that NIH has a wide array of studies into embryonic stem cells.

The reference to Figure 4 should follow the previous sentence, which talks about injecting bone marrow stem cells, which I believe are implicitly adult stem cells, directly into the heart. The last sentence of that paragraph talks about a different experiment: creating heart muscle cells "in cell culture", basically on a petri dish. Maybe they don't know how to put their references in the middle of the paragraph. Or they're just sloppy. I didn't see any reference in the text to the right side of Figure 4, so that's just kind of sitting there with no explanation, perhaps just as another example of what you can do with stem cells, for people who just like to look at pictures (which is most of us).

The "wide array" comment looks like an ad for the NIH. Hey, researchers have to market their product too, often more desperately than people with real jobs.

Most of the NIH discussion has a lot of "may" and "could" and "potential". Usually those are red flags to me. I can't tell if they should be here.

Yes, that's called honesty. It's the most important part of a scientist's job. It should raise a red flag when you don't hear those words - like everytime a politician or pundit speaks.

Yes, that's called honesty. It's the most important part of a scientist's job. It should raise a red flag when you don't hear those words - like everytime a politician or pundit speaks.

I agree. It's called stem cell research. In research, one cannot say 'will', 'can' and 'certainty'.

I think you guys are sidestepping the issue. If the research on adult stem cells is promising and it's only theoretical that embryonic stem cells are better, then I am against that research. I expect that many Americans who now support embyonic stem cell research may also change their minds.

On the other hand, if there's some hard data showing an advantage or some research into adult stem cells that shows the limitations, then I *may* still be reluctant but I expect you will have the support of most Americans.

The problem is that the politicians suggest that the latter is true when I can't find any backup. In this thread, someone points to the NIH which has the same problems -- it's all theoretical -- and the response from some of you that support embryonic stem cell research is that is doesn't matter.

I'm still wondering why there's opposition to taking all of that money and throwing it into adult stem cell research.

My proposed answer is not "disregard for embryos". I think there are scientists who want to make a huge leap, think their shot for glory lies in embryonic stem cells, and want the taxpayer to stake them. I think they are obfuscating that by saying "oh look at those narrowminded pro-lifers" whenever someone raises the issue.

If I were going to oppose this on pro-life grounds, the answers to any of this wouldn't matter to me.

I'm still wondering why there's opposition to taking all of that money and throwing it into adult stem cell research.

I believe the embryonic stem cells are inherently better because they can be turned into more different types of cells - adult stem cells come from embryonic stem cells and in the process become less potent. The "promise" of adult stem cells is that we might be able to turn them back into embryonic stem cells, or at least get them to do some of the things embryonic stem cells can do. If we can't cure a disease with embryonic stem cells, we won't cure it with adult stem cells.

Waiting to see what adult stem cells can do before you spend money on embryonic stem cells is like waiting to see what the internal combustion engine can do before you try to develop the wheel.

JR, that's a nice theory but it's still a theory and again, I have not seen any evidence. Even the NIH site says that there are disadvantages to embryonic cells such as risk of rejection. I have also read that another problem with embryonic cells is that they are too undifferentiated and may not do what they are expected to do -- the tale was that one experiment went horribly wrong because of that. Is that the truth or propaganda from the other side?

Again, the fact that you believe that embryonic cells are better seems to be based on the current line being sold and it may be right or it may not. We've overpoliticized this to a point where we don't know.

JR,

I'm not necessarily against embryonic stem cell research. That's not really the point of my post, but I do think that all other things being equal, it is less ethically complicated to do research from tissue that already exists. David Prentiss, an Indiana State University professor of life sciences had the following to say about the adult vs embryonic stem cell debate:

There are several excellent alternatives to embryos, and they are actually better potential sources of stem cells for numerous reasons. The best sources are from our own organs termed "adult stem cells" or "tissue stem cells." Another excellent source is cord blood; the small amount of blood left in an umbilical cord after it is detached from a newborn is rich in stem cells. In the last two years, we've gone from thinking that we had very few stem cells in our bodies, to recognizing that many (perhaps most) organs maintain a reservoir of these cells.

We've known for some time that bone-marrow stem cells can make more blood, but now we know that these adult stem cells can also make bone, muscle, cartilage, heart tissue, liver, and even brain. Interestingly enough, we now know that our brain contains stem cells which can be stimulated to make more neurons, or to take up different job descriptions as muscle or blood. Bone marrow and cord blood are already successfully being used clinically, while clinical use of embryonic stem cells is years away. Current clinical applications of adult stem cells include treatments for cancer, arthritis, lupus, and making new corneas, to name a few.

One distinct advantage of using our own adult stem cells is that there will be no transplant rejection, since it is our own tissue. Use of human embryonic stem cells will require lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue. Or, the patient will have to be cloned (a second ethical issue!), and that embryo (the patient's twin) sacrificed to obtain the embryonic stem cells for the tissue (essentially creating a human being whose only purpose is to be "harvested").

Another advantage of adult stem cells might be considered from a manufacturing viewpoint: A 2-step manufacturing process is more direct and has much less likelihood of a problem than a 10-step process. Adult stem cells have shown success at forming many specific tissues so far, certainly more than human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory. And as one researcher noted regarding human embryonic stem cells: "We thought from the first that problems would arise using hPSCs [human pluripotent stem cells] to make replacement tissues," indicating that the early stage cells are both difficult and slow to grow. "More important, there's a risk of tumors. If you're not very careful when coaxing these early cells to differentiate -- to form nerve cells and the like -- you risk contaminating the newly differentiated cells with the stem cells. Injected into the body, [embryonic] stem cells can produce tumors." No such problems exist with adult stem cells.

Great post. It needed said.

There's also a good article by Slate editor William Saletan that I found a bit later today. This article has sums up, I guess what I was trying to say quite succinctly:

Why does Kerry call it a "ban on stem-cell research" instead of a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001? Because the shorter phrase, while scientifically inaccurate in four egregious ways, is more politically effective.