Embryonic Stem Cells

Totally Weird

2006-12-02T18:15:00.000-08:00

It seems that some people will go to great lengths to fight off the effects of aging. If you thought botox was bad, a form of botulism toxin that actually paralyzes muscles near the injection site and therefore diminishes wrinkles, get a load of this. In Moscow, beauty salons are injecting stem cells into clients in order to reverse the signs of aging including grey hair and wrinkles. The only problem with this is it’s completely phony.

In the November 8th issue of Newsweek magazine, authors Nadya Titova and Frank Brown reported this sham in an article entitled, “Stem Cell Rip-off”. According to the article about 50 beauty salons and medical clinics around Moscow are using stem cell therapies to treat less than emergent ailments, aka wrinkles. These salons/clinics have no government or adequate medical supervision and just about anyone can get such treatments because in some cases a medical history is bypassed. The treatments have no scientific merit. Sometimes the stem cells are injected under the skin and other times they are administered intravenously. Basically, the hype surrounding stem cell research and its potential ability to cure the incurable has led many people to believe these cells are the fountain of youth. A few scandalous business owners are using that hype to their monetary advantage. The article cited one woman with an annual salary of $65,000 spending over $15,000 on a stem cell treatment to cure her insomnia. This woman spent almost a quarter of her annual income on a treatment that isn’t even medically proven. According to the woman her insomnia went away after the stem cell treatment but who’s to say some of her well rested nights weren’t due to the placebo affect.

The risks of such stem cell treatments of cosmetic purposes are unknown. Along with infection in the blood, tumor onset, and a repressed immune system, no one really knows what stem cells injected into the body for cosmetic purposes can really do. The article proposes that Moscow is now inadvertently running the world’s largest clinical trial on the effects of stem cell therapies for cosmetic purposes in humans, but due to the lack of scientific organization, regulation, and documentation, the results are nearly indecipherable. Some claim that is works, like the insomniac while others such as Vladimir Bryntsalov, who went in for a stem cell treatment to get rid of his grey hair and wrinkles, suffered from pea sized tumors on his face a few weeks after treatment.

So what kinds of stem cells are actually injected into these naive and youth seeking clients? The injections vary but include: embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, pig embryonic stem cells, or just plain old skin cells that were advertised as embryonic stem cells. The article cites Andrei Yuriev, an official with the Federal Inspection Service for Health and Social Development, as saying “None of these beauty salons operates legally.” But says it is not his department’s job to crack down on this issue.

I thought this article was beyond bizarre.

Highlights

2006-11-29T14:58:00.000-08:00

Below are links to three blog entries that I consider to be some of my best.

How Infertility Clinics Contribute to the Stem Cell Debate

A Baby from a Skin Cell?

Symposium and Open Forum

Full Speed Ahead

2006-11-25T22:20:00.000-08:00

This month in Portland Oregon the first-ever fetal stem cell transplant into a human was performed at the Doernbecher Children's Hospital at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU). The experimental therapy is described in the article entitled, “Stem Cell First at OHSU” by Peter Korn of the Portland Tribune.

The young patients at the heart of this experimental stem cell therapy are children that suffer from a fatal condition known as Batten disease. Batten disease is a neurological disorder that begins in childhood and results in death by the teens. Batten disease is inherited. This disease is caused by the build up of fats and proteins in the brain, leading to blindness, impaired motor function, impaired cognitive function, and eventually death. More specifically, the disease arises from a defective copy of a gene that encodes enzymes that break down fats and proteins in the brain, leading to the build up of these molecules in the brain.

In this experimental study at OHSU purified neuronal stem cells were directly injected into the brain of a Batten disease patient. So far only one patient has been operated on but the study will include a total of six patients. The California company called StemCells Inc. of Palo Alto developed the stem cell product and is looking at its effectiveness in humans. The company has already tested the therapy in mice with a Batten-like disease. The stem cells used in this transplant procedure were derived from aborted or miscarried fetuses, with the consent of the woman. The stem cells for this surgery did not come from unused embryos from a fertility clinic.

In order to protect the privacy of the patient and family there is no word on how the patient is doing since the transplant. Both the medical staff and staff members at StemCells Inc. of Palo Alto refused to comment on the experimental surgery. It is important to bear in mind that this transplant surgery is only experimental and that there is no guarantee that the patients’ condition will improve. According to the article, Robert Steiner, the OHSU vice chairman of pediatric research at Doernbecher, described [in regards to the transplant surgery], as "a landmark study" and stressed that, as a Phase One trial, the primary goal is to evaluate the safety of the stem cells as a potential treatment.

Stem cells therapies have been forever aimed at treating neurological disorders and spinal cord injuries. Unlike bone or muscle tissue in the human body, neuronal tissue is very hard to regenerate. If stem cell therapies prove useful in regenerating damaged neuronal tissue a wide range of neuronal diseases and injuries could be treated with stem cells.

Personally I find this article thought provoking. I was unaware that stem cell therapies were advanced enough to be in the clinical trial stage already. I hope researchers and doctors find a way to improve the lives of these young patients. The source of the stem cells used in this trial will spark some debate, undoubtedly.

Adult Stem Cells used to treat Dogs

2006-11-20T09:04:00.000-08:00

Muscular dystrophy describes an inherited disorder of the muscles. Muscular dystrophy causes the muscles to become very weak and over time the muscle tissue is replaced by fatty deposits. In an article entitled, “Stem Cells Aid Dogs with Muscular Dystrophy” describes how stem cell therapies given to dogs with Muscular Dystrophy greatly improved the dogs’ symptoms. The article stated that two dogs “severely disabled” by the disease were able to walk faster and even jump after stem cell treatment. Keep in mind these studies were conducted with dogs, and researchers are not positive this kind of treatment will work for humans with muscular dystrophy.

The study focuses on a certain type of Muscular Dystrophy known as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, primarily affecting males, prohibits muscles from developing in early childhood and may even result in crippling. According to the article, children with this type of Muscular Dystrophy have trouble walking by the time they start preschool and loose their ability to walk between the ages of 7 & 12 years. Commonly, children with this disease die in their early twenties due to heart and lung weakness.

The dog study was conducted by Giulio Cossu, director of the stem cell institute at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milan, Italy, along with colleagues in Italy and elsewhere. The study worked with golden retrievers that had a form of dystrophy similar to the human form. Most interestingly to me was the fact that the scientists used adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells, and got a good result. Adult stem cells from healthy dogs were repeatedly injected into the bloodstream of the crippled dogs. The major downfall of this type of stem cell therapy is the need for anti rejection treatments in the patient. Since the injected adult stem cells come from healthy dogs, the crippled dogs needed to be treated with anti rejection therapies in order for the stem cell therapy to take effect.

The article describes a number of dogs before and after treatment with adult dog stem cells. Two dogs ‘severely impaired’ by the disease regained the ability to move faster, jump and one even ran after treatment, although neither could use hind legs normally. According to the article, the adult stem cell therapy worked because the stem cells fused with regenerating muscle fibers and pumped out a protein that dogs with the disease cannot synthesize on their own.

The one major aspect of this study that stuck out to me was the successful use of adult stem cells. It seems there is a lot of discrepancy within the literature over the usefulness of adult stem cells. There was an article not too long ago about the uselessness of adult stem cells entitled, Adult Stem Cells Little or No Help to Heart. It is a little difficult to accept both arguments. Ultimately I think this shows the need for research in both areas, adult and embryonic stem cells. Obviously, there is not enough information gathered to make a definite argument about adult stem cells one way or another and more information is needed.

Amendment 2 Narrowly Passes

2006-11-10T09:41:00.000-08:00

For those who haven’t already heard, Amendment 2 passed, but only by the slimmest of margins. The final vote came down to 51% in favor of the amendment and 49% against the amendment. This is just about as close as it gets. But this is to be expected when such an issue as controversial as embryonic stem cell research is on the ballot. If it passed by overwhelming margins then I would say it really isn’t that controversial. Obviously, this is not the case. With the approval of Amendment 2, any form of stem cell research authorized by the United States Federal Government will be permitted in Missouri.

The November 9th edition of Newsweek Magazine (online) has an article entitled: By a Whisker, In Missouri a Measure Supporting Stem Cell Research Passes Narrowly but the Fight Isn’t Over. This article, by Arian Campo-Flores, chronicles the differing opinions of two voting Missourians, gives a detailed history of Amendment 2 and also records the events in the days leading up to the election. The article opens with the story of a Kansas City woman who supports the amendment. The article then goes on to describe the history of the amendment. According to Campo-Flores, the idea of Amendment 2 emerged one year ago when a number of organizations around Missouri ranging from medical to faith organizations grew weary of the fact that state lawmakers were considering blocking stem cell research or even criminalizing it in the state of Missouri. Thus the amendment was created, and made it on to this November’s ballot.

Just recently, before the November 7th election, a controversy stirred over one of Claire McCaskill’s campaign commercials that featured Michael J. Fox. The author mentions this commercial to highlight the intense amount of controversy that surrounded and continues to surround Amendment 2. The author also mentions how in the last few days leading up to the election, those groups opposed to Amendment 2 tried to “derail” the amendment support, and mentions how well these ‘derailing efforts” worked. Quoted in the article is Donn Rubin, chairman of the pro-stem cell Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, “Before long, support for the amendment, which had consistently outpaced opposition by double digits, narrowed. “The opponents [did] a good job of polarizing the issue … on partisan lines,” says Rubin (in response to opposition efforts to deter supporters).

Overall, the author mentions a very good point at the end of the article. The point being that stem cell research really isn’t a bipartisan issue. The author gives two examples of how stem cell research can split members of the same party. In the case of the Democrats, the author mentions the “liberal pro-choicers” versus the “catholic pro-lifers”. On the other hand, there were divisions among the Republicans namely the “social conservatives” versus the “business oriented conservatives”. Finally the author closes with the story of a retired teacher who is passionately against embryonic stem cell research.

In my opinion, one of the paramount take home points from this article is the fact the stem cell research is not a bipartisan issue. Republican or Democrat, there is no set algorithm for formulating an opinion about stem cell research. Just because a voter considers himself a republican does not mean he will be against stem cell research because it really in not about liberal versus conservative. This issue is really a personal one that each person can only decide for themselves, and don’t be afraid to change your opinion. As more information becomes available about embryonic stem cell research, individual opinions will undoubtedly change. The article as a whole does a good job of presenting each side of the case. The author opens the article with a testimony of support and ends with a testimony of opposition.

Symposium and Open Forum

2006-10-29T11:10:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday October 25, 2006, the University of Missouri-Columbia College of Arts and Science Student Council held a symposium and open forum entitled “Know the Facts About Stem Cell Research”. There were three speakers each designated to cover a specific aspect of the research. The first of the three speakers was Dr. Mark Kirk. He discussed the science behind stem cell research, both adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. During his presentation, Dr. Kirk showed a video of stem cell therapies in mice. Basically, the video showed two different mice with spinal cord injuries. The two mice had spinal cord bruises around their 9th or 10th Thoracic vertebrae. One of the mice was treated with stem cells while the other one was not. The untreated mouse (the control) had no movement in his hind legs or tail. The mouse treated with stem cells was able to stand on his hind legs alone and swing his tail. To conclude his presentation, Dr. Kirk discussed Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) and mentioned how therapeutic cloning is different from human reproductive cloning.

The second speaker was Dr. William Bondeson. Dr. Bondeson discussed the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research and presented two big questions for the audience to ponder. His first question for the audience was, “Why are we voting on a constitutional amendment?’ Dr. Bondeson’s second question for the audience was, “Is therapeutic cloning morally permissible?” Also, he raised the question about killing with respect to destroying blastocysts. When a blastocyst is destroyed in order to harvest the stem cells inside, is that the same as killing a full grown human being? Does a blastocyst have human rights such as the right to not be harmed, or do those human rights come into play further down the line? Dr. Bondeson also mentioned that the major source of blastocysts is from in vitro fertilization clinics around the country and mentioned that Amendment 2 would strictly prohibit human reproductive cloning but would allow therapeutic cloning.

The third speaker was Vicky Riback Wilson. Ms. Riback Wilson discussed the political side of stem cell research, specifically the Missouri politics and discussed in detail Amendment 2. She gave a brief history of the causes of Amendment 2 and heavily stressed how voting on Amendment 2 is not a stem cell research issue but it is rather in issue of public policy.

I was surprised at how many people attended the symposium and open forum. It was not just college students but people from the community of all ages. Audience members were allowed to ask questions during each of the speakers’ presentations but there was also a question/answer session following the three presentations. Dr. Kirk’s video of the injured mice raised a number of questions. One audience member wanted to know if these types of stem cell therapies could be used to regenerate skin for burn victims. Theoretically, yes they could. Another member wondered why so much of the stem cell therapies are tested in mice? Why didn’t researchers try testing stem cell therapies in animals that are more closely related to humans, such as apes? I thought this was a great question because I have wondered this myself. If there was scientific evidence of an ape regaining movement in his lower extremities after a spinal cord injury, I would feel more certain that such therapies would work with humans. Dr. Kirk responded by stating that more basic research is needed to test for safety before higher animals are tested. He also mentioned that mice are the easiest “in lab” animal. The part of Dr. Kirk’s presentation on SCNT was confusing for a lot of audience members so we spent a lot of time on those figures. Overall, the most confusing aspect of stem cell research for the audience was how to get a stem cell to differentiate into a specific type of cell, such as a nerve cell or skin cell.

Dr. Bondeson’s presentation was different from Dr. Kirks. In Dr. Kirk’s presentation the questions had scientific answers that Dr. Kirk himself could provide, but the questions raised during Dr. Bondeson’s presentation were questions each individual had to answer for themselves. One audience member asked Dr. Kirk’s opinion on some of Dr. Bondeson’s questions, since Dr. Kirk is obviously supportive of stem cell research. Dr Kirk believes the benefits of stem cell research far outweigh the human rights of the blastocyst but he acknowledges that not everyone will agree with this and said that it is a personal decision that each person must make for themselves. Dr. Bondeson asked the audience why Missouri is voting to amend the constitution. This is where he handed the discussion over to Ms. Riback Wilson.

Ms. Riback Wilson stressed continuously that amendment 2 is more an issue of public policy than an issue of stem cell research. For a number of years bans on stem cell research in Missouri have been raised by certain groups. An amendment would eliminate all possibility of any future bans on stem cell research in Missouri, because a law on stem cell research could potentially get overturned. There was a lot of confusion in the audience over what Amendment 2 was really proposing. Basically, Amendment 2 would allow Missouri to follow federal laws regarding stem cell research and would prevent the state from enacting a ban on stem cell research in Missouri.

I thought this symposium and open forum was an excellent idea. I was glad to se so many people of all ages interested in stem cell research in Missouri. With an issue as complicated as stem cell research, it is crucial that voters get informed not only on the scientific aspect but of the ethical and political aspects as well. I cam away from the symposium and open forum with a lot more knowledge on the political side of Amendment 2; I never understood why we were voting on an amendment but now I have a better idea. It is nice to know Missouri voters are putting in time and effort to make the most educated decision they can on Amendment 2.

Little Hope with Adult Stem Cells

2006-10-22T09:13:00.000-07:00

Adult stem cells are basically any stem cells that are not derived from an embryo. Adult stem cells are actively studied in order to find cures that would circumvent the need to destroy embryos, as with embryonic stem cell research. According to an article entitled Adult Stem Cells Little or No Help to Heart Repair, adult stem cell therapies were not successful in treating patients with heart damage. This article describes three studies that used adult stem cells to repair heart damage in patients with hopes that the adult stem cells would restore some function to the hearts damaged by heart attacks. More specifically, the studies looked at adult stem cells ability to remedy damage to the main pumping chamber of the patients’ hearts because heart attacks weaken heart muscle an reduce its ability to pump blood.

The first study described in the article was a Norwegian study that focused on 50 patients who had had heart attacks in recent weeks. These 50 patients were given bone marrow stem cells and were compared to patients who received no such treatment. This study found that the patients who were given the adult stem cells showed no significant improvement compared to those patients who did not receive adult stem cells. In the second study German researchers infused 101 patients who recently had had heart attacks with adult stem cells. 103 heart attack patients were given fake infusions. Here, the patients who received the adult stem cell infusion improved heart function 5.5 percentage points four months after the treatment, whereas those who received the fake infusion reported improved heart function by 3 percentage points. In the third study described in the article German researchers gave 28 patients infusions of bone marrow stem cells, 24 patients infusions of circulating blood stem cells and 23 patients no infusions (control group). Bone marrow stem cell infused patients reported a 3 percentage point increase in pumping ability compared tot eh other two groups.

In each of these three studies, adult stem cells were infused into patients’ hearts via cardiac catheterization. Meaning, a tiny balloon is threaded into the heart and inflated to momentarily block normal blood flow while the adult stem cells are injected. Cardiac catheterizations are routinely used for gathering information on the pumping ability of the heart muscle. Success was measured by changes in the amount of blood pumped with each heart beat.

The second and third study shows a modest success with adult stem cell therapies, while the first study shows no measurable success. In research, it is important to recognize that no result is still a result. What these studies are really showing is the need to explore embryonic stem cell treatments. Some scientist believe embryonic stem cells have a better potential for treating ailments such as heart damage and this study could be used to formulate an argument for lifting the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. One thing I learned from this article was how they actually used stem cells to treat patients. I was not aware that stem cells could just be injected into the organ (in this case the heart) and given a few minutes to take root. I was a bit disappointed after reading this article that adult stem cells had little or no ability to improve the heart function of heart attack patients.

Associated Press. "Adult Stem Cells Little or No Help to Heart Repair." MSNBC. MSN. 22 Oct. 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/.

"What is cardiac catheterization?" Cardiac Catheterization. The American Heart Association. 22 Oct. 2006 .

New, accurate information about Amendment 2

2006-10-10T10:04:00.000-07:00

An anonymous comment prompted me to correct my information regarding Missouri's stem cell research laws. The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures put out a list of 10 Key Facts about Amendment 2. The first fact states: "The research and cures protected by Amendment 2 are already allowed under federal and state law. Amendment 2 simply prevents any unfair state bans." What this means is stem cell research is legal in Missouri. Amendment 2 is aimed at protecting this research, and any cures, from being banned by state lawmakers.

According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor entitled State Laws Bypass Research Ban Amendment 2 would ensure "that stem-cell research remained legal, including therapeutic cloning, which destroys very early human embryos, called blastocysts, in the process."

In summary, research involving adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is currently legal in Missouri. Amendment 2 will make sure that access to stem cell research, and any stem cell cures, remain available to Missourians.

Information on 2

2006-10-08T08:15:00.000-07:00

This image is becoming increasingly popular around campus as the November 7, 2006 election day nears. This image, taken from the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures website, is the logo behind the coalition’s initiative. Around Mizzou’s campus alone, there have been informational booths set up around Brady Commons and the Ellis Library handing out stickers, pins and brochures. All this is sponsored by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures. There are federally approved stem cell lines that are lawful to use in other states. Amendment 2 is aimed at protecting the research and cures already allowed under federal and state law. Amendment 2 would prevent politicians from placing a ban on this type of research/cures in Missouri. Amendment 2 also bans any attempt to clone a human being, reproductive cloning. Although Amendment 2 states it will “clearly and strictly ban any attempt to clone a human being” it is important to realize that reproductive cloning isn’t the only type of cloning. There are two more types of cloning that pertain to Amendment 2, therapeutic cloning and research cloning. Embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer, as is the case with therapeutic and research cloning, could technically be considered human clones. This is where opponents of Amendment 2 (Missourians Against Human Cloning) like to attack the proponents’ arguments, by stating that Amendment 2 will protect human cloning. The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures refutes this claim by stating: ‘Opponents of stem cell research claim that making stem cells in a lab dish is the same thing as “human cloning”. Medical experts and most other people disagree with that view and understand that ‘human cloning” means creating a duplicate human being-not making stem cells in a lab dish.’

To completely formulate your opinion on embryonic stem cell research and Amendment 2 it is important to decide for yourself where human life begins. If you would like more information or have questions you would like answered by doctors, politicians, or ethicists there will be an informational symposium and open forum entitled, Know the Facts about Stem Cell Research held in Middlebush Auditorium 12 Wednesday, October 25th from 7pm-9pm. The symposium and open forum is sponsored by Arts and Science Student Council and is aimed at discussing an unbiased view on stem cell research. It is open to students and any local voter. There will be three speakers, including a physician, politician and ethicists from Mizzou.

Update: 10_10_06 In regard to the bolded sentence above, I changed it today because it contained the wrong information. It is now correct.

A Baby from a Skin Cell?

2006-10-07T10:58:00.000-07:00

It is truly amazing how greatly science can manipulate the beginning of life. Believe it or not, it is theoretically possible to create a baby using only the skin cell of a man. This is the basis of cloning, another highly controversial topic in this country and around the world. I am willing to bet everyone has heard of Dolly, the first ever cloned sheep. Dolly is a clone created using the breast cell of a mother sheep. Some people say Dolly got her name because the DNA used to create her was taken from a breast cell and Dolly Parton arguably has the largest breasts ever, so scientists named her Dolly (scientists think they are so funny). In any case it is possible to create a human clone in the same manner Dolly was created but this has never been done…yet.

The actual process of cloning is called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). This process could theoretically be used to create cloned human beings, but there are two more practical applications of SCNT known as research cloning and therapeutic cloning.

What is Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT)?

Somatic cells are all the cells in our body (i.e. skin, eye, liver) except sperm and egg cells. Every somatic cell in our body contains a complete set of our DNA in its nucleus. The difference in a skin cell versus a liver cell is not because either of these cells has a different set of DNA, the differentiation results from different parts of the complete genome being expressed or silenced. The overall important thing here is that every somatic cell contains our entire set of DNA. In SCNT, the nucleus of a somatic cell (say the skin cell of a man) is removed and the rest of the cell is thrown out. The nucleus of an egg cell is also removed, but here the nucleus is discarded. Then, the nucleus of the somatic cell is inserted into the enucleated egg. The egg, which now contains the nucleus of the man’s skin cell, is placed in culture and programmed to grow and divide in the laboratory (scientists can program a cell to divide by altering its chemical environment). After a number of divisions, the cell becomes a blastocyst with an identical set of DNA as the person who donated the somatic cell, the man. The picture above, taken from Wikipedia, illustrates a scientist using a micropipette to remove the maternal DNA from the egg cell prior to inserting the somatic cell.

Using this procedure to create human clonesalso known as reproductive cloning, is not really an issue right now. Most people , scientists included, don’t see a real benefit to having a clone of themselves. There are potential benefits to therapeutic cloning and research cloning.

What is therapeutic cloning?

Therapeutic cloning, SCNT is performed to create personal stem cell lines. The best way to illustrate this is through a hypothetical scenario. Scientists take a somatic cell from a young man. The scientists perform SCNT and instead of letting the blastocyst develop into a full fledged human, they harvest the stem cells out of the blastocyst (just like in embryonic stem cell research) and create a stem cell line made specifically from that man’s own DNA. That stem cell line is maintained in culture indefinitely. Then, let’s say in the future that man has a terrible accident where he suffers a spinal cord injury. The stem cell line that was created specifically from his own DNA could be used to treat his injury with little or no risk of immune system rejection because the cells used to treat hum are his own, in theory. You can easily see how therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research are connected and why the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research are the same surrounding therapeutic cloning.

What is research cloning?

In the same way scientists can customize stem cell lines for individuals, they can also create stem cell lines for specific diseases. Scientists could take a somatic cell from someone with Alzheimer’s disease use SCNT to create a blastocyst. This blastocyst would contain all the genes that accompany Alzheimer’s disease. The stem cell line resulting from that blastocyst would be specific for Alzheimer’s disease, meaning that stem cell line would contain disease-specific stem cells linked to Alzheimer’s. Scientists could use these disease-specific stem cell lines to obtain a better understanding of Alzheimer’s disease and use that understanding to develop better treatments.

How Infertility Clinics Contribute to the Stem Cell Debate

2006-09-30T12:59:00.000-07:00

For embryonic stem cell research to grow and develop, new embryos are needed to sustain the research. Because it is unlawful to create embryos for the sole purpose of embryonic stem cell research, new embryos used for research are donated. This is how in vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research fit together.

What is in vitro fertilization (IVF)?

Simply put, definition of in vitro fertilization from an online glossary is the mixing of egg and sperm in a laboratory dish in order to achieve conception. This process is often used for couples that cannot conceive naturally but would like a child biologically similar to them. In vitro is Latin for “in an artificial environment”, compared to in vivo, which means “in the body”.

Technique:

More specifically, IVF is assisted reproduction where egg and sperm are united in a laboratory dish and the result is observed for 2-3 days to see if any cell division has occurred (this signifies conception has occurred and an embryo is forming). If cell division occurs, 2-3 developing embryos are placed in the woman’s body. Here lies the important link to embryonic stem cell research.Fertility clinics regularly take multiple eggs from one woman and try to fertilize all of them with sperm. Prior to having her eggs surgically aspirated (removed via suction) by doctors, a woman planning to under go IVF is given specific hormones. This ensures several eggs will be available for scientists to harvest and potentially fertilize. All removed eggs are mixed with sperm in hopes that fertilization will occur. If numerous embryos form, only 2-3 will be placed in the woman’s body per treatment in hopes of implantation. The remaining embryos that were not used in the first treatment are frozen is case the first treatment fails.

The process of in vitro fertilization spawned the term “test tube baby” because babies created through IVF are actually conceived in a laboratory. The first test tube baby was born in England in 1978, and in 1981 the first test tube procedures were performed in the United States. At the time this procedure was beginning in the United States, a huge ethical uproar occurred similar to that facing embryonic stem cell research today. People were concerned about scientists “playing God” and were distraught over exactly where life began. The controversy surrounding IVF at the time dealt mainly with science versus religion. This is extremely similar to the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research. It should be noted that 250,000 babies have been born in the U. S. as a result of IVF since it first became available in the United States. There is slim to no controversy over IVF any more.

Donations:

What if a couple undergoing IVF has a successful pregnancy on their first treatment yet still has frozen embryos on reserve in case the first treatment failed? What happens to those frozen embryos? The couple has a number of options. Firstly, they can donate the embryo to another infertile couple. Interestingly enough, this is the earliest form of adoption. There are rules, regulations, and paperwork for adopting an embryo just as there are laws and forms to fill out when adopting a child. The second option is donating the embryo to research, specifically embryonic stem cell research. Another option is disposing of the embryo. I find this extremely interesting. There are so many varying degrees of person hood that our society gives an embryo. An embryo can be adopted or it can be disposed of; this just seems absolutely polar opposite to think of something that is worth adopting and throwing away at the same time. Sometimes a couple chooses not to do anything with their frozen embryo. The infertility clinic will keep them frozen indefinitely. Embryos will not “go bad” if they are frozen too long, it is not like they will expire or anything. Another, less common reason for freezing embryos is for extraneous circumstances. If a couple is not ready to start a family, but is anticipating an event that could hinder them from conceiving in the future (chemotherapy for example) they can choose to create and freeze embryos in advance. This way, when they are ready all they have to do is notify the clinic that they are ready to get pregnant and the appropriate actions are taken with their frozen embryos.

Basically, there are a lot of frozen embryos out there; the latest estimate I read was 400,000. The majority of them are left over reserves from infertility treatments, IVF. The only way these embryos can be used for research is if the “parents” of the embryo donate it by signing a document.

Clift, Eleanor. "400,000 Frozen Embryos." Newsweek Politics. MSNBC. 28 Sept. 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13973858/site/newsweek/.

"In Vitro Fertilization." In Vitro Fertilization. eMedicineHealth . 29 Sept. 2006 .

Federally Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Lines

2006-09-24T08:27:00.000-07:00

I have posted some answers to questions posed about the federally funded embryonic stem cell lines in the United States. Some of the answers are pretty short because I myself am still learning the logistics.
The rhyme or reason behind the 60 approved embryonic stem cell lines lies in when they were created. In 2001, President Bush decided any embryonic stem cell lines created before August 1, 2001 were going to be federally funded. Any embryonic stem cell line created after that date would not be federally funded. There is somewhat of a debate among the scientific community as to just how many viable stem cell lines there really are. Some researchers believe there are only a couple dozen usable embryonic stem cell lines and that 60 is an overshot. Despite the confusion on the actual number of viable embryonic stem cell lines, one thing that almost all researchers agree on is the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of embryonic stem cell lines are required to produce significant findings in the laboratory. For this reason, not a lot of embryonic stem cell research supporters agree with President Bush’s decision in 2001. They see it an neither a step forward or backward but rather a futile effort to appease both sides of the argument.
No matter how many viable embryonic stem cell lines there really are, each stem cell line originated from a unique/individual embryonic stem cell. Once the stem cell is harvested it is coaxed in culture to continue to grow and divide for an indefinite amount of time.
It is also possible for researchers to use private funds while experimenting with embryonic stem cells. In this way, scientists can circumvent the federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

A Step in the Right Direction

2006-09-23T22:30:00.000-07:00

Embryonic stem cells, despite their potential to cure a number of diseases, remain of utmost controversy because obtaining the stem cells requires the destruction of nascent human life. This problem has led scientists to try to develop a way to obtain stem cells without sacrificing a beginning human life. After all, wouldn’t that solve all the problems? Well, this past August, 2006, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology claim to have created stem cell lines that may not destroy the embryo.
Researchers at Advanced Cell Technologies claim that they can remove only one cell from the developing embryo which is then used to create a stem cell line. An embryo with only one cell removed can still develop into a full-fledged human being, therefore this procedure seems to eliminate any ethical considerations opposing embryonic stem cell research. According to the MNSBC article entitled Error in journal confuses stem cell debate, the journal that published the Advanced Cell Technologies findings stated in an email to reporters "[Advanced Cell Technologies] was able to generate new lines of cultured embryonic stem (ES) cells while leaving the embryo intact." Scientists know that an embryo with one cell removed is able to survive and grow normally because fertility clinics regularly remove a single cell from a developing embryo for testing purposes.
I remember reading about this new technique when it was first published this summer and thinking how amazing this procedure would be and its implications on science and medicine. But shortly after the findings were published in a British journal, details of the study surfaced that discredited it greatly. As it turns out, the researching company that designed the new technique destroyed all embryos used during the development of the technique. On average, five or six cells were actually removed from the embryo during the research, effectively destroying the embryos. Advanced Cell Technologies stresses the importance of the findings, not the means to those findings, and suggests the reason for taking so many cells from the developing embryos and destroying them was to increase the likelihood of a positive result.
Thus, as it turns out, the new breakthrough research that seemed so promising at first glance is actually not as promising as first imagined. It is a step in the right direction though. In order to appease both the scientific and religious arguments surrounding embryonic stem cell research, a technique like this one should be developed. This way, those scientists are happy because they can research with embryonic stem cells, which they see as the most potent, viable, and have the best potential for cures, while the religious and ethical arguments are put to rest.

"Error in Journal Confuses Stem Cell Debate." MNSBC. MSNBC. 24 Sept. 2006 .

Open Forum in Washington, MO

2006-09-23T17:17:00.000-07:00

As the November voting date approaches, I am seeing more and more radio, television, and billboard advertisements regarding Amendment 2. This past week in my hometown of Washington, MO there was an open forum at the local high school specifically geared towards Ammendment 2. A recap of the forum was published in this weekend's edition of the Washington Missourian. The article, entitled Threlkeld: Stem Cell Public Forum a Success; Educated Voters on Issue and written by Michelle Oyola descirbes the open forum as somewhat heated yet successful experience.
Basically, about 100 people gathered in the fine arts center of the high school to hear two opposing arguements pertaining to embryonic stem cell research. After each speaker presented his arguement, the audeince was allowed to submit written questions that were answered by each speaker individually. One of the speakers was a member of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures (the same group that started this whole initiative in the first place) while the other was a respresentative of Missourians Against Human Cloning. The supporting arguement, given by a man confined to a wheel chair, mentioned cures that would allow those with spinal cord injuries to walk again and the addition of new jobs to the state of Missouri. The opposing arguement mentioned the benefits of adult stem cells, which would avoid the destruction of human enbryos.
Overall, I think an open forum like this one is a great idea. Embryonic stem cell research is one of the greatest debatable issues of our country at this time. Along with that it is one of the most complicated, scientifically and ethically. It is important to inform voters in a way outside of advertisements. It is not a good idea to gather information about embryonic stem cell research solely from television and radio advertisements because they are so one-sided. This open forum was a way to present information to voters from both sides of the issue and more importantly it allowed the audience to ask questions.

What are stem cell lines?

2006-09-17T09:00:00.000-07:00

There are 60 federally funded stem cell lines that are available for scientists use in this country. The term cell line refers to a lineage of cells that are grown and maintained indefinitely in a laboratory under a specific set of conditions. Initially cells are harvested from animal/human. With the proper care and maintenance; a cell line can result from the originally harvested cells and can propagate indefinitely resulting in a large number of genetically identical cells. It is called a line in reference to this type of lineage. There is one ancestor cell that when properly cared for can grow and divide indefinitely. Stem cell lines are just one of countless types of cell lines. There are cell lines for just about every disease, for example there are lymphoma and leukemia cell lines. In this case the ancestral cell was a diseased cell and researchers will use cell lines to study the genetic makeup of a diseased cell and can easily compare the diseased cell with normal cells or whatever they want. Hundreds of scientists/ researchers can use any/all of these 60 stem cell lines. Because a stem cell line can propagate for an indefinite period, these stem cell lines act as a continuous source of stem cells. Basically, there are 60 unique stem cells for scientists to work on, and because these cells can grow continuously, they can be copied as much as needed by researchers. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research would like a greater number of stem cell lines available. 60 stem cell lines may seem like a lot, but some scientists believe significant medical findings will only result from research on a greater variety of stem cell lines.
Amendment 2 asks voters to allow Missouri scientist the continued opportunity to perform embryonic stem cell research.

Commercials

2006-09-15T17:51:00.000-07:00

The commercials sponsored by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures encouraging Missouri citizens to vote yes to Amendment 2 are somewhat misleading. If you haven’t seen any of these commercials you can easily view a number of them at Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures website.
Undoubtedly, embryonic stem cell research has the POTENTIAL to provide cures for a number of diseases including Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. This research could also POTENTIALLY provide treatment for those suffering from spinal cord injuries. There is no guarantee that stem cell research will lead to cures for any of these diseases or injuries. The only way to know for sure is to perform research. The commercials sponsored by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures make it seem like the cure to a number of horrible diseases is locked away in a little black box and the conservatives of Missouri (or the United States for that matter) are hiding the key. This is not the case. No one knows for sure of the real treatment potential for embryonic stem cells, the only way to find out is to perform research. Many of the commercials point a finger at the lawmakers of Jefferson City, stating that they are standing in the way of countless miracle cures. In reality, opponents of embryonic stem cell research are weary of the ethical and moral implications the research could have on the future of society. Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research are not opposed to saving/improving peoples’ lives (as the commercials slightly imply). They are opposed because the treatment potential for embryonic stem cells is indefinite, and the moral and ethical complications are unsurpassed. Don’t be fooled by commercials that promise effective treatments for diseases and injuries as a result of embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to provide cures, but no one really knows for sure.
Even if a cure were to develop out of embryonic stem cell research, some of us may not even live to see it or benefit from it. Stem cell research is in the beginning phases and in order to develop cures/treatments, a lot of research must be performed merely to understand embryonic stem cell differentiation. Once stem cells are better understood by scientists it could take decades to develop the slightest inkling of a human cure. It would take even longer to get the treatment tested to make sure it is safe for human use. These commercials are emotionally moving but remember there is no guarantee for a cure to any diseases.

Politics

2006-09-13T20:05:00.000-07:00

I was watching the morning news show one day this week and one of the commercials really caught my attention. It was a commercial sponsored by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, heavily supporting Amendment 2 to the Missouri Constitution titled Stem Cell Research and Cures. This coming November, 2006, the registered voters of Missouri will be asked to vote yes or no on Amendment 2.

What is Amendment 2?

Under Federal Law, it is legal to conduct research on a select number stem cell lines. Amendment 2 asks the voters of Missouri to protect the use of stem cells for research purposes here in Missouri, both adult and embryonic.

What exactly are the approved stem cell lines?

There are 60 stem cell lines that the government has approved for research in this country. These stem cell lines come from unwanted embryos left over from in vitro fertilization at fertility clinics. In August, 2001, President Bush announced the decision to allow federally funded research on these 60 stem cell lines, and only these stem cell lines, in his Address to the Nation. Any stem cell lines created after this date would not be federally funded.

Why this decision?

In an effort to compromise, President Bush gave stem cell research proponents stem cell lines with which to work, but also put a restriction on creating stem cell lines in the future as to appease opponents of the research. Ultimately, no one was pleased. Proponents of the research claim that 60 stem cell lines are not sufficient enough to uncover significant findings, while opponents claim destruction of human life took place for the sake of science.

Amendment 2, Stem Cell Research and Cures is a lengthy amendment with a number of restrictions and guidelines. To read Amendment 2 in its entirety visit The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures website. Briefly, the purpose of Amendment 2 is to ensure:
1) Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures
2) That Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, including stem cell
research permitted under federal law
3) That all research is conducted safely and ethically
4) Any stem call therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to
patients in Missouri

"About Amendment 2: The Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative." Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures. Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures. 13 Sept. 2006 .

Embryonic vs. Adult Answers

2006-09-10T07:57:00.000-07:00

Allison had some interesting questions about adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells. I will try to answer some them here.

Adult stem cells are found in almost every tissue in the body, including the spinal cord, umbilical cord, bone marrow and the connective tissues of various organs whereas embryonic stem cells are only found in a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage. They are very difficult to obtain because they are scarce, and hard to find even with today’s techniques (Lillge). Once the adult stem cells are outside the animal, they are difficult to culture (grow). The potential (power) of Adult stem cells is somewhat debatable. Science has known about stem cells for around 30 years, and for a majority of that time, it was believed that adult stem cells could only differentiate linearly and only into the type of tissue from which they were originally discovered. This is what made them less potent than embryonic stem cells because an embryonic stem cell could technically become any one of multiple cell types of the organism. This is referred to as pluripotential. In his argument supporting adult stem cell research, Wolfgang Lillge, M.D. explains that tissue-specific stem cells found in animals, specifically mice, have the potential to transdifferentiate, meaning they can differentiate into a cell type different from the type of organ where they were found. For example, neuronal stem cells of mice have transformed themselves to blood stem cells and produced blood cells. A study by Catherine Verfaillie at the University of Minnesota suggests adult stem cells are actually as potent as embryonic stem cells (Westphal). This research is exciting but scientists within the field of stem cell research remain skeptical. Compared to embryonic stem cells, there is really no way of knowing which type of stem cell is more potent and some scientists maintain that embryonic stem cells are more promising than adult stem cells as far as treatments go. Supporters of stem cell research altogether claim that embryonic stem cell research must continue in order to understand the full potential of both adult and embryonic stem cells.
In the United States, it is lawful to use federal funds to conduct research on embryonic stem cell lines created prior to 2001. This limits the number of usable stem cell lines for research. In this way, embryonic stem cells are also hard to obtain because federal law is very restrictive. In some states, private funds are used to conduct embryonic stem cell research.

Westphal, Sylvia P. "Ethical Dilemmas." NewScientist.com. 10 Sept. 2006
.
Westphal, Sylvia P. "Ultimate Stem Cell Discovered." NewScientist.com. 10 Sept.
2006 .
Lillge, M.D., Wolfgang. 21st Century Science & Technology Magazine. 10 Sept.
2006 stem_cell.html>.

the beginning

2006-09-09T12:25:00.000-07:00

Having some basic knowledge on what stem cells really are can help people make informed decisions about their personal position on the issue. I think it is particularly important for Missourians to understand what exactly is embryonic stem cell research and the major issues surrounding it because this November (2006) it will be on the Missouri ballot. In order for voters to express their true beliefs on the ballot they must be as informed as possible. Here, I would like to explore the two opposing arguments surrounding embryonic stem cell research.
The controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research is directly related to ethics. Basically, what everything boils down to is this…where does life begin??

As you know from the background information, embryonic stem cells can only be obtained for research purposes by destroying an embryo about 5 days after conception (fertilization of egg with sperm). Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research see conception as the beginning of life and thus destroying an embryo is the same as taking a life. I know it is hard to believe that a mass of 50-150 cells can be considered human life and some proponents of the research take a different view. Some proponents of the research believe human life begins when electrical conduction through the cells arises, this happens about 14 days after conception. Thus a 50-150 cell blastocyst that is present only a few days after conception isn’t technically a human life, therefore its destruction is not unethical. Frankly, no one knows when life begins. Intuitively, it would seem life begins at conception, but if you think about it for a while, you begin to wonder if there really is a definitive point in time when a network of cells becomes a human life. Is it a gradual process that occurs in degrees? Is it logical to assume % human life? What I mean by this is could something (like a network of cells) be 50% human, 89% human? These are just a few of the countless questions desperately in need of answering before the controversy over stem cells can be resolved. I encourage you to decide for yourself when life begins. Is it at conception, after a set number of days (14?) or is it a matter of degrees? Answering this question for yourself is the first step in determining your stance on the issue of embryonic stem cell research.

Background information

2006-09-05T17:45:00.000-07:00

Most likely, everyone has at least heard of stem cells. But what about the difference between adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells? Why is embryonic stem cell research so controversial? In order to answer these and many other questions a basic working knowledge of stem cells and the ethical, political, and social issues surrounding the subject is necessary. I will begin with a brief introduction to stem cells.

The human body is composed of countless types of cells: blood cells, nerve cells, brain cells…. etcetera. Stem cells on the other hand are undifferentiated cells, meaning they are not any specific type of cell. When they divide, they have the power to become any of a number of cell types. During division only one nascent copy goes on to become differentiated, while the other copy remains a stem cell.

The two types of stem cells I will be describing throughout the semester are adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found among differentiated cells. Unlike the name suggests, these types of stem cells are found in children and adults. Adult stem cells are somewhat limited in the number and type of cells into which they can differentiate. For this reason, adult stem cells are not as popular for research purposes as embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells on the other hand are the controversial ones and the type of stem cells people hear about most often in the news. An embryonic stem cell is pluripotent, meaning it has the ability to differentiate into many, many types of cells; they are much more ‘powerful’ than adult stem cells. What makes embryonic stem cell research so controversial is how the cells are obtained. Embryonic stem cells are obtained from the inside of a blastocyst (a human embryo with anywhere from 50-150 cells). In the process of obtaining embryonic stem cells, the blastocyst must be destroyed. Now, the controversy becomes clear.

In summary, stem cells are nonspecific cells that have to ‘power’ to become a certain type of cell. Two major types of stem cells are embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are found in children as well as adults and can differentiate into a limited number of cell types. Embryonic stem cells are found only in human embryos, often referred to as blastocytes. Adult stem cell research is not controversial. Embryonic stem cell research is extremely controversial because of the way in which the embryonic stem cells must be obtained. Unfortunately, it is believed by many a scientist that embryonic stem cells are much more powerful and could provide a greater range of therapies for those suffering from disease or injury compared to adult stem cells. As you can probably already predict, the range of social, political and ethical issues surrounding stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research is wide.

"Stem Cell Types." Stem Cell. 5 Sept. 2006. 5 Sept. 2006 .

2006-08-31T12:42:00.000-07:00

Welcome! My name is Stephanie. With this blog I aim to inform readers about several issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research including ethics surrounding embryonic stem cell research along with the positive and negative affects embryonic stem cell research could have on society, medicine, and science. I do not intend to persuade readers to side for or against this type of research, but I do hope to give readers a better understanding of the science behind the research and how that is directly linked to the surmounting ethical issues surrounding the subject. I am not a professional, but a college student trying to better understand the issues of embryonic stem cell research. With this blog, I hope to inform others and teach myself something about embryonic stem cell research.