DiscussMormonism.com

The Dude brought up an interesting discovery about adult stem cells. Apparently they can be made the equivalent of embryonic stem cells--at least in mice. I'm sure it's trickier to do with humans.

Anyhow, for those who think that ES research is morally wrong, does this change things for you? Do you now consider AS research to also be immoral because of their potential for life? Is it on ly immoral to turn AS into effective ES?

I'd also like to hear The Dude's thoughts on this very interesting discovery. What does he think of the implications? Also, what does he think of the opposition to ES research? I know he's not happy with it, but I'm also wondering about those who oppose things they consider to immoral because it plays with life--whether that life be human, animal, or whatever. Does The Dude hold more respect for, say, the Jains who consistantly hold all life sacred to the point of sweeping the floors where they walk so as not to step on small organisms?

asbestosman wrote:The Dude brought up an interesting discovery about adult stem cells. Apparently they can be made the equivalent of embryonic stem cells--at least in mice. I'm sure it's trickier to do with humans.

Anyhow, for those who think that ES research is morally wrong, does this change things for you? Do you now consider AS research to also be immoral because of their potential for life? Is it on ly immoral to turn AS into effective ES?

I'd also like to hear The Dude's thoughts on this very interesting discovery. What does he think of the implications? Also, what does he think of the opposition to ES research? I know he's not happy with it, but I'm also wondering about those who oppose things they consider to immoral because it plays with life--whether that life be human, animal, or whatever. Does The Dude hold more respect for, say, the Jains who consistantly hold all life sacred to the point of sweeping the floors where they walk so as not to step on small organisms?

Hey Asbestosman, it's a lovely topic, with huge implications in this political environment. It's been several months now since the work was published, and I don't think it has ever made the headline news. Since this is a scholarly topic for me, I would like to dig up the original papers and give a summary. Then more of my own thoughts. Soon.

I think the arguement against stem cell researh, to my understanding, is the fear of creating a post abortion market. In other words, a desire for aborted babies to harvest the cells from.

How would the number of aborted fetuses increase if there was a market and money to be made from the fetuses?

Gazelam wrote:How would the number of aborted fetuses increase if there was a market and money to be made from the fetuses?

It's a fair question. Personally I think it wouldn't change much. I would think it easier to create and use fertilized ES outside the womb.

asbestosman wrote:

Gazelam wrote:How would the number of aborted fetuses increase if there was a market and money to be made from the fetuses?

It's a fair question. Personally I think it wouldn't change much. I would think it easier to create and use fertilized ES outside the womb.

I agree, I don't think it would have much effect at all.

While I love the idea of gene level medical therapies, I have to say I'm disappointed that science hasn't given us robot bodies yet. How much longer am I going to have to wait to become a brain in a jar? I could get so much more done if I didn't have to drag this meat bag around...

Gazelam wrote:I think the arguement against stem cell researh, to my understanding, is the fear of creating a post abortion market. In other words, a desire for aborted babies to harvest the cells from.

How would the number of aborted fetuses increase if there was a market and money to be made from the fetuses?

Sure it might. But do people realize that this fear is not connected in any way to the method of creating human ES cells? A human ES cell line has never -- NEVER -- been created from an aborted fetus. To my knowledge, it isn't even possible because once an fertilized egg has undergone more than a few days of development it looses the cells with full ES potential. They change into germ cells and migrate to the gonads. And ABman is right that it's far more straighforward to take them from in vitro fertilized embryos.

Now with mice, the ES cells are made from aborted embryos (not fetuses -- those are too far along in development). But this involves killing the mouse, removing the uterus and fallopian tubes, and then flushing them with saline to wash the embryos into a dish before they implant in the uterine wall. That's what you would have to do to make ES cells from an aborted human embryo. Clearly, nobody would want to do that to a pregnant woman.

asbestosman wrote:The Dude brought up an interesting discovery about adult stem cells. Apparently they can be made the equivalent of embryonic stem cells--at least in mice. I'm sure it's trickier to do with humans.

Okay, this was the discovery. The latest development came out in Nature (July 2007), from a Japanese lab led by Shinya Yamanaka. They made something they call iPS cells, for induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, which come from skin cells of adult mice that have been "reprogrammed" to have the properties of embryonic stem cells. This was done by introducing active copies of four genes (called Oct3/4, Sox2, c-Myc and Klf4) that together re-activate genes that characterize the growth and differentiation potential of ES cells and early embryos. So by putting in genes that give ES cells and early embryos their singular properties, Yamanaka forced the boring old skin cells to become "like" ES cells.

To prove that the new iPS cells had the power of ES cells and early embryos, they turned the iPS cells into live, fertile mice built from the reprogrammed DNA and cellular material. This experiment proves the similarity of iPS cells, ES cells, and embryos.

This is a huge advancement for ES cell researchers seeking ways around the ban on making new ES lines with US government funds. If this can work with human cells (and it should, with some tinkering), it means a patient would be able to donate some adult cells and have them turned into iPS cells representing his individual genotype. So there you go: there may be no need to disrupt frozen embryos at IVF clinics to get ES cells for research and therapy. There may be no need to perfect nuclear transfer techniques in order to get cloned ES cells that match your DNA profile. There may be no need to develop dozens of different protocols for handling adult stem cells (which is where Bush and many republicans place all their faith).

iPS cells blur the line between 1) embryos, 2) ES cells made from embryos, 3) cloned cells/embryos and 4) adult cells of all types. By putting in genes that force cellular DNA to return to the embryonic state, scientists could mold one of your skin cells into a cloned embryo of you. That's what they did with the mice, anyway, to prove that the converted skin cells had the properties of ES cells.

Asbestosman wrote:Anyhow, for those who think that ES research is morally wrong, does this change things for you? Do you now consider AS research to also be immoral because of their potential for life? Is it on ly immoral to turn AS into effective ES?

Yes, what do people think of this new discovery? I wonder when political candidates are going to use it to their advantage. Who will go there first, the Republicans or Democrats? So far, I haven't heard anything about it except from scientific colleagues, who are quite excited. It's the way of the future.

I'd also like to hear The Dude's thoughts on this very interesting discovery. What does he think of the implications? Also, what does he think of the opposition to ES research? I know he's not happy with it, but I'm also wondering about those who oppose things they consider to immoral because it plays with life--whether that life be human, animal, or whatever. Does The Dude hold more respect for, say, the Jains who consistantly hold all life sacred to the point of sweeping the floors where they walk so as not to step on small organisms?

I don't know if I should respect the Jains just because they try so hard to be consistent about respecting life. I think nature is as uncaring as gravity, and it is up to us to make our way in the universe and survive. I think the opposition to ES research and genetic research is spiritually based and irrational. If the Jains took over one of our political parties and started blocking the needs and interests of non-Jains in the country, I think that would really bother the rest of us. Nobody would be happy with it. The same goes for ES cell research, which now has the support of the majority in America but remains blocked by Bush's personal convictions (and veto power).

for ES cell research, which now has the support of the majority in America but remains blocked by Bush's personal convictions (and veto power).

I think it's a strange thing with Bush does too in light of the fact that ES research is legal (as I understand it), but is not supported with government funds. In any case, history shows that neither party remains in office forever, but it can still retard progress in that area as well as encouraging gifted scientists to go to other countries.

I certainly wouldn't be happy if the Jains forced their views on me. I'm a roach killer and proud of it.

I think nature is brutal, but I think it in our best interest to give some rights to life and that our fate is connected to the fate of others. So while I'm all for eating meat, I'm against slavery and animal cruelty such as dogfighting. Perhaps in that regard my views are inconsistent or irrational. Bur in regards to Stem Cells, I think even ES should possibly have some rights at some point. I would think it immoral, for example, to create fully cloned humans merely to harvest their organs or to experiment upon. Once homo-sapien life is sentient I thnk it should have the rights we all do. Personally I think a good line to draw between stem cells and living humans may be in whether or not neurons have developed in said fetus/whatever. Thus I would be for using ES to grow an organ so long as it doesn't have a brain. I certainly don't want to endow each of my skin cells or kidneys with the full rights of all human beings separate from my choice about them. I say they're part of my body and I should be able to decide their fate.

Thank you for sharing the study. I wonder one of the biggest controversies with it will be over cloning. Cloning doesn't bother me any more than identical twins do (I have brothers which are identical twins). I'd only be concerned with clones if it comes to treating them as 2nd class citizens. I guess another potential concern would be for security--would they be able to bypass bio-based security? I guess even twins have different fingerprints, so perhaps not. I guess quality of life for clones vs naturally conceived (or IVF) would be another issue. I remember hearing that Dolly had problems, but she was made by nuclear transfer.

By the way, must the AS cells used still be alive, or could this be used to, for example, bring back wolly mammoths? I'm sure we're a long way from Jurassic Park, but I'm guessing that nucleal transfer would be more applicable to that. I'd also guess that working with human cells provides the greatest medicinal potential.

Another thing I wonder about is whether getting adult cells to behave as ES has any parallels to cancer. Isn't cancer caused by abnormal growth plus a broken self-destruct mechanism? Do you think this new procedure may offer an increased cancer risk if used for transplants? I certainly could see the value in studying tissue either way. I just wonder if the threat of cancer may make it unsuitable for regrowing organs.

I think it's a strange thing with Bush does too in light of the fact that ES research is legal (as I understand it), but is not supported with government funds.

Legally, companies can do what they think is going to pay off for them and not inflame investors (they tend to have an institutional review system to give ethical or legal recommendations).

I think nature is brutal, but I think it in our best interest to give some rights to life and that our fate is connected to the fate of others. So while I'm all for eating meat, I'm against slavery and animal cruelty such as dogfighting. Perhaps in that regard my views are inconsistent or irrational.

You would be against dogfighting, but not cockroach fighting or slimemold tournaments, right? There must be a reason for drawing the line below dogs, I would think....

But in regards to Stem Cells, I think even ES should possibly have some rights at some point. I would think it immoral, for example, to create fully cloned humans merely to harvest their organs or to experiment upon. Once homo-sapien life is sentient I thnk it should have the rights we all do. Personally I think a good line to draw between stem cells and living humans may be in whether or not neurons have developed in said fetus/whatever. Thus I would be for using ES to grow an organ so long as it doesn't have a brain.

And this can be done by removing a single known gene. It's been done to make other kinds of headless animals (mice and tadpoles, I think). Lots of people would oppose it and try to stop it from going forward. Some would admit that they don't have a logical or scientific reason for restricting that particular approach, but only a powerful emotional disgust (the council that advises Bush on bioethical issues is headed by Leon Kass, who has written that repugnance is an expression of deep wisdom. "Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder.")

Personally, I agree with the limit being somewhere safely in the realm of non-sentience. It could be less sentient than a dog, though (in my opinion).

I certainly don't want to endow each of my skin cells or kidneys with the full rights of all human beings separate from my choice about them. I say they're part of my body and I should be able to decide their fate.

So what should you be in control of? What should scientists not be allowed to manipulate for research, or used by doctors for transplants?

Protein or DNA extracted from your cells or blood?
Your living skin or blood cells?
Your brain cells?
Networks of your brain cells?
Sperm or eggs from your body?
Cells from your body that can make sperm or eggs?
Any of the above taken only after you are dead?
Embryos created from your sperm or egg by IVF (either frozen leftovers or made just for research)?
Cells from an absorbed twin (carrying same DNA), attached to your baby?
Placental cells (carrying the same DNA as the baby)?
Cells from a naturally aborted fetus (your offspring)?
Your tumor cells (that carry your DNA)?

By the way, must the AS cells used still be alive, or could this be used to, for example, bring back wolly mammoths? I'm sure we're a long way from Jurassic Park, but I'm guessing that nucleal transfer would be more applicable to that.

This new approach wouldn't work unless you had a living cell. You could put the mammoth DNA into another cell by nuclear transfer, but with this new approach you could put it into more than just an enucleated egg. Then the right set of transplanted genes could be introduced to confer pluripotency on the reconstituted cell. That would be one way to do it.

Another thing I wonder about is whether getting adult cells to behave as ES has any parallels to cancer. Isn't cancer caused by abnormal growth plus a broken self-destruct mechanism? Do you think this new procedure may offer an increased cancer risk if used for transplants?

It certainly has that problem -- any transplantation scheme involving the genes for growth and survival has the possibility of cancerous side effects. In fact the Myc gene that was used to make these iPS cells is a cancer gene of sorts and the mice made from iPS cells had an increased incidence of cancer. There are lots of tricks to put better control on the genes that are introduced, so, I expect it will be solved (more or less) and human trials will eventually go forward on something like this. Sooner or later.

I certainly could see the value in studying tissue either way. I just wonder if the threat of cancer may make it unsuitable for regrowing organs.

Just the ability to study the tissue of genetically interesting people will be a resource for discoveries. This will lead to discoveries soon, I expect. I think we will see transplants much later.

Gazelam wrote:I think the arguement against stem cell researh, to my understanding, is the fear of creating a post abortion market. In other words, a desire for aborted babies to harvest the cells from.

How would the number of aborted fetuses increase if there was a market and money to be made from the fetuses?

There would be little or no “market” as you suggest. Here is why. Hundreds of embryos are discarded which were frozen for couples. They need only one or two (for the number of children they plan to have from frozen embryos). BUT, the process involves producing many embryos since not all survive. Then the best or a selection is made from available embryos. Those not required are destroyed (simply thrown away). It is those embryos which could be used for stem-cell research. Those presently discarded would be sufficient for scientific research. Many who have supplied them would gladly give them for scientific research on the diseases where they might be useful.

The only ones Bush permitted to be used which were already in the pipe-line. What he vetoed was the acquisition of new embryos from fertility clinics. He did not prohibit the discarding of those which were not used by couples who had produced them.

In any case, the issue is somewhat pointless in that other countries are using embryos for stem-cell research. Hence, the science of research is going where the science can function uninhibited by repressive laws.

Similarly, people are acquiring legal drugs from Canada at often half the price that they would have to pay in the USA. The drugs are the same drugs manufactured by the same pharmasudical companies.

Along with the Bush prescription drug plan was protection for drug companies allowing them to raise prices at will and with no price-negotiation by insurance companies.

Meanwhile, all prescription drugs are free to members of Congress as is all medical care. In addition, drugs for veterans are purchased with negotiated pricing far lower than what non-veterans must pay.

In any case, repression on scientific research may slow it in the USA in the short term, but it will proceed elsewhere. Medical scientists will go where they can do the research. In the end, the benefits of that research on embryonic stem cell research will eventually be realized in the USA.

JAK