Stem cells: embryonic versus adults, scientists and Christians

[beforewisdom]

A few months ago I read an article about British scientists who grew a woman a new wind pipe out of her own adult stem cells. Through my job I come into contact with people associated with medical research. I recently learned that in one research study sickle cell anemia was cured for some people by using adult stem cells.

I don't *think* ( I don't know ) if similar successes have been achieved with embryonic stem cells.

I don't believe that embryos are people. I think that is a religious belief only.
It is a religious belief that many Americans have. I don't think that religious belief should be catered to, but I do think it should be respected out of respect to the many Americans who hold that belief.

I know from the animal testing issue in the AR community scientists are human beings and some of them will claim that some things are necessary, when they are not, going on their rhetorical authority as "scientists".

Does anyone have an informed opinion about whether or not embryonic stem cells are still necessary given the advances in adult stem cell research?

[Ariann]

I don't believe that embryos are people. I think that is a religious belief only.
It is a religious belief that many Americans have. I don't think that religious belief should be catered to, but I do think it should be respected out of respect to the many Americans who hold that belief.


I think this is a little confused. Embryos are genetically individual humans. That's not a religious belief, that's a scientific description of reality. What you do with that information depends on your own biases, but to say that only religious people belief that embryos are "people" or that all religious people belief that embryos are "people" is simply not true and kind of missing the point. Furthermore, I should hope that science does cater to serious discussions of the ethical ramifications of research, especially in biomedical issues. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done. That conversation should be a wide open one, inviting all serious ethical thought, religious or otherwise.

That being said, I'm all for embryonic stem cell research. The idea that scientists have to provide evidence that their science will have practical application before they actually get to do the research seems a little silly. Theoretically speaking, embryonic stem cells could provide significantly more therapeutic value than adult stem cells. The reason for this is because they are more pluripotent - that is, they can be made into more varieties of cells than adult stem cells can. They can also potentially be seeded with any person's DNA in order to create tissue for people who for whatever reason could not contribute their own adult stem cells. So why hasn't any of this stuff proven practical yet? Well, for one reason embryonic stem cell research has been stonewalled for years while adult stem cell research has not. For another, sometimes medical research takes tens of years to produce fruit and people's expectations are rather unrealistic. If there's funding to be had and ethical considerations are taken into account, I don't see why we should not allow scientists who are excited about this research to continue.

[beforewisdom]

I think this is a little confused. Embryos are genetically individual humans.


Its been over a decade, but I've taken courses at the graduate level discussing the concept of personhood and in this context.

The best minds ( or at least the ones willing to enter the debate ) have concluded by using logic and facts that having human genetics is not sufficient for personhood.

[Ariann]

beforewisdom, so have I, and quite recently. The idea that one can use "logic and facts" to decide ethical questions is already a major problem. Basic assumptions play a huge role in all rational discourse, and here it is no different. I am not equating having human genetics to personhood (obviously, considering my stance on this and abortion), I'm just saying that to equate the two does not take a religious mind and is not at all irrational, and at least the issue of embryos having human genetics is not an issue upon which reasonable people of any persuasion disagree.

[beforewisdom]

beforewisdom, so have I, and quite recently. The idea that one can use "logic and facts" to decide ethical questions is already a major problem.


It has to be that way if you want to eventually make laws, as laws have to be based on something.


I'm just saying that to equate the two does not take a religious mind and is not at all irrational,


Being rational is all about dealing with what facts and logic give .

I mean no offense, it is just worded that way. I'm not interested in a penis waving contest over religious beliefs I don't have, so I will bow out.

I posted because I wanted to know if there is still a need for embryonic stem cells given the success with adult stem cells.

[Ariann]

There is no such thing as rationality without making basic assumptions. And I ain't got a penis to wave. Laws, especially of this type, seem to be rarely based on rational discourse, unfortunately or fortunately I don't know.

And I would still say yes to your last comment.

[nauthiz]

Another reason why embryonic stem cells haven't born a lot of fruit yet is that they're a lot harder to work with than adult stem cells. We're still working out all the different biochemical processes behind cell differentiation, and it's a pretty complicated process. It's most difficult for totipotent cells because you have to go through the greatest number of steps to get from them to functional cells. The details of all those steps and the mechanisms behind them haven't all been figured out yet. (Thanks, partially, to the choking off of research funding for figuring out how it all works.)


Also, a lot of the neat things that are being done with adult stem cells are done using ones that have had their genomes retrovirally manipulated. That may prevent many of them from ever being approved for therapeutic use, because the ethical considerations related to introducing cells like that into a person's body are pretty daunting. We might be able to do some of the same stuff with embryonic stem cells without having to muck about with them in scary ways, which might help those therapies be more successful in making it from the lab to the market.

Or, of course, embryonic stem cells could be a bit of a dead end. But we'll never know if we don't try.