Posted: 5/21/2005 4:55:54 PM EDT
|
Everyone these days is claiming that Stem Cell research is the path to curing terrible diseases like Parkinsons, Alzheimers and possibly cancer. Am I the only one who thinks that curing these diseases is a bad idea? Hear me out on this. If we cured these diseases we could extend the life expectancy of millions of people another 20 years. But then what? As it stands, we are looking at a crisis with our Social Security and Medicare systems with the life expectancy of the average person being 75. If we extend their life expectancy, how will they be supported? What will be their source of income? Who will pay their medical costs to receive the stem cell treatments, or to cover the treatment of ailments we cannot cure with stem cell research? Who will cover their drug costs and the costs for things like eye glasses and hearing aids? I'm not trying to be cruel, but with the baby boomer generation getting ready to retire, and gene therapy and stem cell research are the last thing we need right now. The generation that will follow the baby boomers is much smaller, and it will have a very hard time covering the expenses of the baby boomer's retirement as it is. Death is a part of life, and you have to die of something. I say stop trying to cheat death and start letting nature take it's course. Society needs for the old to die eventually so that each generation can advance. |
|
Fortunately, most of the rest of the world are taking over the stem cell research deal where the US fears to tread. Cures will be found, just probably not by the US. But we'll all benefit, so no great harm done in the larger scheme of thing. See this week's South Korean announcement for example. I'm sorry, but if I'm the guy whose life could be extended by a few years, I'd like the research done. Otherwise, why not just execute everyone who hits 65? NTM |
|
Use the Umbilical brothers.  Err... I mean umbilical cord cells  Absolutely NO controversy over using that. Although it currently offers slightly less differentiation, that's most likely an obstacle that can be overcome sooner and with more ease than overcoming the moral/ethical controversies of using whole human zygotes. |
|
Until they can overcome the problem with FOREIGN CELL REJECTION, using stem cells from a "stranger" will never work. Sure, you can transplant a whole organ but the patient will be on anti-rejection (actually immune system supressing) drugs for the rest of their life. The organ has billions of cells and each one is attacked in one way or another. It is the sheer number of foreign cells that ensurre viability. But a single cell cannot be viable unless the entire immune system is killed. Then you have the cancer risk because many cancerous cells are effectively fought in normal healthy people because the mutation changes the cancer cell into a target for the immune system... It will never work because effective therapies from autogenous stem cell donations will be the only method to work. |
| I think it will eventually work... and the federal government should be funding the research. That is the one thing I can't stand about the Pres Bush. Not allowing federal funding because of religious beliefs is insane. Sorry but that is how I feel. Embryos are not human beings. Period. |
|
what I'm sick of is the libs screaming about stem cell research being illegal, when in truth, it's just a ban on federal funds. If I were a drug company and actually believed they would work, I'd spend every penny the company had. Imagine the profits from coming up with a cure to those major diseases. I think gene therapy holds more promise than embryo stem cells. |
|
In the 80's, prostaglandins, thromboxanes, and the arachidonic acid products research were going to cure all that ailed us. Then, cytokines were going to cure all cancers. Like fashion and firearms, medical research is influenced by 'trends' and 'fashion'. Stem cells may find a few uses, but it's not the path to eternal life, like some seem to think. |
|
I'm more interested in stem cell research to repair injury. Especially things like massive organ damage and spinal cord injuries. Research conducted in Spain shows that adult stem cells CAN do the job but the younger the stem cell is the better the job it does. On the TV series Innovation on PBS they had a teenage girl that was re-learning to walk after having a spinal cord injury from 2 years prior repaired. With adult stem cells we probably won't be able to repair a patient like that to 100% even with ideal technology and techiniques, but embryonic it is a much better possibility. Embryonic stem cells are destroyed every day in fertility clinics, let science have access to those samples that will be destroyed anyway so we can figure out if they do work better and if they do hold more promise. Science is built on experimentation, and repitition under varying conditions. The stem cell lines we have now do not have enough variation to provide an adequate sample size. This is why scientists are bitching about the President's compromise. I'm also skeptical that stem cell technology will massively increase life spans for the baby boom generation. It is more likely that it will increase their quality of life up until their death, maybe a slight increase in life span but not a large one (1-2 years tops). |
|
"I think it will eventually work..." Pure science fiction. Governments around the world have funded it...as have some private companies with ZERO successes. Meanwhile adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells have CURED dozens of people from dozens of problems, injuries and diseases. " and the federal government should be funding the research." WHY? If the private sector isn't funding research there has to be a damn good reason: it doesn't look likely enough FROM THE SCIENCE to produce cures... so getting .gov involved isn't scientific but political. The one's who are fantatics and religious nuts are the ones who call for sciencefiction cures sought after by billions of tax payer dollars. Talk about pie in the sky.... embryonic stem cells WOULD WORK ONLY BECAUSE THOSE EMBRYOS ARE HUMAN BEINGS YOU IDIOT.  But they don't work in OTHER HUMAN BEINGS' BODIES precisely because the organs grown are not accepted. "That is the one thing I can't stand about the Pres Bush. Not allowing federal funding because of religious beliefs is insane. Sorry but that is how I feel. Embryos are not human beings. Period." Yeah and you just proved that you don't know diddly squat about biology or religion or science. |
|
In fairness, governments and private companies have also thrown a fair bit of dosh into cold fusion, SETI and cures for AIDS and cancer and a few other programmes with bugger-all success. The fact that so many scientists are devoting time and effort into these programmes indicates that theoretically it can be solved, they just haven't figured it out yet. I think their lack of success to date is a rather weak argument. NTM |
No, the LACK of ANY success (in non-autogeneous grafts) is due to the fact any foreign stem cell is treated as a foreign body and the host IMMEDIATELY recognizes it as such and kicks the immune system into high gear, destroying the transplanted stem cells. Organs consisting of billions of transplanted cells can be non-autogeneously transplanted with success only because of the vast numbers of cells and the cooperative nature of the organ. |
Please calm down. You're right, stem cell technology is mostly hype right now. That isn't to say private research hasn't provided promising results. This guy below works mostly with funds from the private sector. As such, the dissemination of that knowledge is tightly controlled, which can possibly mean in the future that the technology to save lives is controlled by the few. www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24159 Think if we could put together the power of many brains working openly with public funds, instead of a select few working for small companies. Progress would move a lot faster. America has the financial and human power to do exponentially more for research what South Korea can only dream of. That's the disappointment.
Stem cell transplantation would ideally use material made from the patients own tissue. When you get an organ transplant, your chances for success are increased if it comes from an immediate family member, who is actually only approximately 25% (sibling) or 50% (parent) genetic match. So let's day if you took a sperm cell from yourself and in vitro fertilized any random egg from any donor, you'd have tissue that is a 50% match to yourself. The 50% match could be enough to promote long term immunological tolerance to the transplant, possibly even without immunosuppressive therapy. Even at that, advances in controlled immunosuppressive therapies has greatly improved stranger-to-stranger organ transplantations in recent years. For instance, 95% of all kidney transplants today are successful. Does that also translate into success for cellular transplantation? Well, we won't find out if we don't do the research. |
|
95% of renal transplants are successful because of proper matching and the correct application of immunosuppressives. But that is apples to oranges on stem cells. Like I said, a kidney has BILLIONS of cells and only the epithelial cells suffer immune system attack, something easily moderated by immunosuppressives. Stem cell hype is based on the idea of "seeding" regeneration in vivo, something that has not been proven in any of the cell grafting "Frankenstein" therapies that are outside of the USFDA/NIH control. Now autogeneous grafts have proven success, simply because there is no rejection issues. So why are the moonbats hell-bent on the path that is a dismal failure? Justification for termination of a life? |
The NIH doesn't fund embryonic stem cell research, I thought that's the issue? So of course there are no grants for this type of work. So I'm not sure what what you mean by "NIH control," please clarify or correct me if I'm wrong. The link I posted suggests that the re-seeding strategy may work in mice. Although, since it's a privately funded study, the details of the experiments will not be published, at least not any time soon. That's the potential danger with private industry research. They may lose hundreds of millions of dollars, or they may find something that will only be given to the public at a premium. There are many angles to the stem cell studies, not simply just "re-seeding" cells. I'd assume tissue growth ex vivo would be one, similar to the use of cell growth matrices to grow sheets of skin. Also, I think a lot of important basic science research can come from it, such as studying control of gene expression during tissue differentiation. Not everything funded by the feds is clinical in nature. |
|
Please re-read my post. I said any research outside of NIH/USFDA/USDA control. And yes, there ARE federal funds available for embryonic stem cell research, proving once more the public is woefully misled on this subject. And to thrust the coup de grace, these federal funds were signed into existence by President Bush. No federal funds for embryonic stem cell research existed BEFORE President Bush. Mice? Would that be immuno-suppressed hairless BALB-c mice? Like the kind used for cancer research? These mice are genetically deficient in their immune system and must be kept in sterile environment, otherwise normal bacteria kill them. Their lives are pathetically short because they rapidly develop cancers from the lack of an immune system. Oh yes, I have a bit of experience here but in monoclonal antibody research using such animals. I have the USDA/USFDA certificates for handling such animals... |
|
Keith, I know, you said outside of NIH control. Doesn't that link show some evidence that the cell graft technique has shown promise in a study OUTSIDE of NIH control? Unless you meant humans. Then I would agree with you. You can't move to humans before you've done the appropriate animal work, with a few exceptions. I don't believe anyone has made an attempt to treat humans, NIH or not. I was just trying to clarify what you meant about "NIH control." The existing ES cell lines are crap and are kept alive (and thus likely contaminated) with other cell types. There are no federal funds to create new, fresh embryos. I haven't jumped to a conclusion about their study because they haven't published their methods. I only brought it up as an example of the progress being made in the ES cell area. Yet, you're already assuming that they used a certain line of mice that doesn't have any relevance in the real world. It could possibly be, because in science you move in a step wise progression. Demonstrate proof of principle in a highly controlled environment first. Then the next step is to solve the other logistical problems concerning tissue graft rejection. No one will fund step #2 without proof that step #1 can even be done. Regardless of clinical relevance, studying new ES cells could be a great value to the basic science arena whether or not it ever gets into humans. |
Thanks guy, appreciate your sentiments…  Grandfather… died of Cancer age 61 Grandmother… died of Cancer age 59, Uncle… died of Cancer age 38, Father… died of Cancer age 56, Notice a pattern? and I'm 46… Fuck yeah! let's donounce any research that could cure cancer… ANdy
|
Runner! |
|
many people with parkinsons, alzhiemers and similar diseases still live past 80 and die of something else curing them of those diseases wouldn't make them live longer per se (since they'll still likely die of something else, like a stroke or heart attack), but it would make their last years better |
You don't have any monopoly on loss fella. Both of my Grandfathers died of Cancer, and my Grandmother on my mom's side died of cancer as well. My Grandmother on my father's side recently died of Alzheimers. I still say that prolonging people's lives by eliminating the diseases that bring about their natural deaths is wrong. Death is a part of life. Get used to it and make the most of the time that you have. |
Then why use human embryonic stem cells for non-human experimentation? Prove it in non-human species first. The argument for human embryonic stem cell experimentation is hollow. |
If embryonic stem cells had any promise (like the human genome project), there is NO BAN ON NON-GOVERNMENT FUNDED RESEARCH! And who completed the Human Genome Project first??? The answer is private concerns see no benefit in embryonic stem cell research. Ergo, government funded embryonic stem cell research is a waste of funds, better utilized in cancer research. |
And I never said there was a ban, just lack of funding for new embryonic lines. But as I emphasized earlier, the financial support of .edu by .gov can potentially move things faster. More brains involved, open sharing of data, etc. I disagree with your assessment of "private concerns" being focused on the lack of science behind ES cells. The science is there at the cellular level, albeit still in early stages. My continued participation in this thread was to offer a rebuttal to your emphatic claim of ES cell research being "bad science" or that there "is no way around" the challenge of suppressing immunological rejection. Nothing personal, but I think it was pretty arrogant of you to say those things. I think it's more of a risk vs. reward issue. ES cell research is so young that it'll be a long time before profits are realized, if the research is even successful. A private company that guesses wrong may go under. If .gov guesses wrong, it'll survive. The feds have funded plenty of things that have led to dead ends. But negative data is important as well to prevent people from continuing work that won't be fruitful. I think your argument shouldn't be on claiming it's bad science, but that public funds are better diverted to improving current therapies for various diseases, which can realize success a lot faster than completely new research. |
Yeah, I'd say stem cells do NOT = extended life. BUT if they find a way to deal w/DISEASE, it could DRASTICALLY increase life expectancy, but, IMO, not gonna happen. We already HAVE the "cure" to most of these diseases, we're just too "thick" and too impatient to realize it.... MS (what I have) will NOT be helped , IMO by "stem cell research" - doesn't, IMO, mean we shouldn't DO it... but the problem is we do not have the "building blocks" whether it be from "new stem cells" or our own bodies.... and w/o the proper "building blocks" (In MS, Omega 3's and octacosanol) damage won't be repaired. And IF those are added by supliment or diet - you'll get better (if you also stop milk for a while - 2 years should do it) I see it more of a possible "answer" when it comes to replacing limbs, or possibly organs - like a friend who only has 11% of her pancreas because of a horseback riding accident....like that.... IMO, THIS is where the research will be of use, but NOT to fix Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or MS. Those are ALL "omega 3's +" deals, w/o those, not gonna happen, and WITH those and time, it'll occur "naturally" (minor improvement, steadilly over approximately 7 years). |
Isn't that the ultimate goal of ES cell research? Nuclear transfer of DNA from an adult cell into a de-nucleated egg to create an embryo that is a 100% match to a donor. That's what the Korean lab is doing now and their efficiency and cell viability is pretty impressive so far. Why waste effort on animals if you can get human tissue? There still is the issue of genomic imprinting, but once you get the human embryos you've got a place to start tackling the problem. It's not going to lead to cures anytime soon, but it can help us study human disease progression on a cellular level. A lot easier and more efficient than waiting for tissue samples from diseased patients. That is important and can provide insight on new pharmacological targets for drug development -- it can help cancer research since you mentioned it. ES cell research is not simply about cellular grafting. The money that is already supplied by the feds for animal ES cell work can be shifted to emphasize work with human tissue. Look at it that way. No real extra increase in net funding. Just move it around. |