Chalk one up for genetic and stem cell research!

This is the kind of thing that they have long suspected they would be capable of. How incredible that we're finally able to see the some of the results that are possible. Maybe this will help alleviate some of the hangups people have about stem cell research.

I know of someone (former teacher's daughter) who had a type of cancer and was treated with stem cells... and it was 10 years ago!

There is ONE key and important part in the stem cell success. It was done with ADULT stem cells - not embroic stem cells. This is not the first time that adult stem cells have been successful.

Keep that in mind - the embryo ones are NOT successful and are at the heart of the contraversy. If the doctors/scientist want to experiment with the adult stem cells which are more and safer successes, then fine - but I'm again killing an human embryo to get the stem cells.

Actually, we don't know that they are not successful. We won't know that until studying them gets some funding. It's not illegal, just unfunded. Not having the funding to conduct research does not eqate to the research being a failure. Research costs money, and the researchers have to feed and house their families too, ya' know.

Same here, although he lost his fight with another type of cancer a few years later. The stem cell theraphy was successful.

I agree, Martise. There's no need for it with the current state of research being unproven for sure, and I'd personally never agree with it being done anyway.

The brutal reality is we are all born to die. Curing the bad things along the way is progress than mankind has made for itself, but the end result is the same. I think God would frown on costing a life to save a life.

I think that is the core of the controversy. The human embryos that are targeted for stem cell research are ones that if not used for the research are destroyed anyway. I simply don't understand why there's no controversy for killing the embryos for no purpose at all, while there is controversy for using them to save the lives of others. Can anyone explain that to me?

There's actually several schools of thought on that, some of them valid to some degree or another. One is that if the research were to prove successful and beneficial, that it would create a black market for human embryos, perhaps even with people enduring multiple pregnancies and abortions for the money or even downright fetal theft. There is already a black market for human cadavers and body parts, and there will always be a black market for anything of value that's in demand.

Some people look at it as a moral issue, while others look at it pretty much the same way as organ donation.

And then there are a few that think that learning how to actually generate new human organs is simply knowing more than mankind is "supposed" to know.

And I'm sure there are a good many more reasons held by people on a personal level that I'm not aware of.

I was under the impression that the embryos for embryonic stem cell research/therapy were embryos that would never be used to begin with.

So just where are the "leftover" embryos coming from? They have to be fertile and growing into a human.

I seem to remember it being mentioned they wanted to use inventro fertilized embryos that had been frozen. I'm going to try looking that up again.

Ok - but they ARE still fertilized and can grow into a human - whether or not they are implanted is immaterial. That's still a human embryo and it seems some want to consider them non-human....if its not used, just throw it away.

If an embryo is not going to be implanted why not use it for the greater good. I don't exactly consider that factor immaterial. Which is better, curing someone of a deadly disease or doing nothing and the embryo just sits there frozen until it is no longer useful. Frankly, if I or someone I love was sick, take my eggs, fertilize them and use the stem cells. We were give many eggs with the expectation the vast majority would not be used so let the ones not used be useful.

I understand your point, but that's what is being done with a lot of these unused embryos. Like the new octuplet mom, there are generally more fertilized eggs than can/should be implanted. Most people don't opt to use all of them, like she did. They also don't want those fertilized eggs being implanted into someone else (i.e. someone who doesn't have egg production, but wants to carry their baby). Right now, they are literally discarded, thrown away. Mike's point is what is the difference in moral arguments between the current practice of discarding the fertilized eggs, and doing research with those same fertilized eggs?

Stem cell research is exciting, whether or not it's using embryonic stem cells. My mother had her own stem cells harvested for a procedure with chemo about 15 years ago. Basically, they harvested her stem cells (not a pleasant procedure...it involved taking bone marrow multiple times over the course of many weeks), gave her massive doses of chemo and completely destroyed her immune system (and hopefully the cancer), and then reintroduced the sterlized stem cells to rebuild her immune system. It's the same steps used in the most recent research for MS, with great results. It's great if they could use it for AIDS too. It is a difficult and time consuming procedure. Mom was in isolation for over a month while her system regenerated.

Stem cell research and procedures are not necessarily just referring to embryonic stem cell research.

Well, I wasn't able to find the article I was looking for. I found all sorts of info on the procedure, but not the article about someone wanting to use them for research. Maybe it was archieved. Maybe it was removed. Maybe I dreamed it. Oh well.

But you are absolutely right. Regardless of the mechanics of how fertilization occurs (organic, plastic, eyedropper, shaken' bake bag) the effect is still the same. A fertilized egg becomes an embryo, and is frozen.

I personally don't think there ever is a "life begins" moment. I think life is always, and it is merely passed on, sort of like the way a cutting from a tree can grow a new tree. Merely a tiny piece of life set free to grow on it's own. But, that doesn't follow anyone's doctrine, that's just me

That's exactly what happens to unused embryos. After IVF, the unused embryos are either stored for a period of time for later use, or discarded. So it seems to me that these embryos we would be better off helping to save lives rather than being destroyed. It is much like organ donation in that way. A person could still be "alive" but have no quality of life, during which time their vital organs can be donated to someone who could go on to live a healthy life. Is that also "murder"? These embryos could be developed into a human life, but those in question won't be.

If one subscribes to the belief that life begins at fertilization and then that fertilization produces a 2 celled embryo and those embryos are frozen for a time and eventually discarded [thrown away], it seems that this practice should then be considered wholesale murder & prosecuted as such.

This thought raises a question that I've had for many years now: why aren't the Right to Lifers picketing every IVF clinic in America [because of that practice of destroying developing life]? I do believe it's never been done [to my knowledge anyway]. I mean, where's their outrage? I find that curious, to say the least.

No, they can't because there is no differential between the two. It is pure hypocrisy for them to think otherwise. Destroying life=destroying life, no matter how they may want to 'spin' it in their own minds.

That's exactly the point of my earlier question. It is very hypocritical to condone one practice (stem cell research) and accept and/or support the other (IVF). Both, by the argument of strong pro-life supporters, are murder.

I support the middle ground. If IVF can be used to produce babies, why can't it also be used to save lives of others?

Well, it looks as though the ban on government funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research is about to become history.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews...51E15B20090215

I think that the average person does not know what we can really do with embryonic stem cells, and it is because of that they continue to be such a controversy. As a researcher in medical genetics, I still dont understand how the average person doesnt know what we can "cure" in animals using embryonic stem cells, with minimal adverse effects, and no lifespan alterations etc. To suggest changing the animal procedures to humans would make a difference ignores biology imo...in any case though, mice, rats, dogs, cats (and more) have all ben "cured" from spinal cord injuries using embryonic stem cells. Parkinsons, alzheimers, diabetes, genetic cancers, autoimmune disorders (even the most severe SCID), infertility, and many others have been repeatedly cured by the use of engineered embryonic stem cells in various species and animal models of disease. It is widely thought among scientists that these exact treatments could directly be used on humans if we were simply allowed the technology to do so. ***AND*** while there may be lots of controversy about people who might not want these treatments, there are hundreds even thousands of people who are completely willing and begging to volunteer - and are denied these treatments because a large body of people think the "life" of an embryo (perhaps unwanted) is more valuable than the lives of people suffering from various disease. And I know I know - adult stem cells have enormous value and potential, but as someone with very intimate knowledge, I can tell you adult stem cells cannot and will never do what we have the potential to do with embryonic stem cells.
As for the leftover embryos...well, Im all for using them, but Im all for the creation of dedicated embryos for research as the leftover IVF ones are usually leftover for a reason (ie usually the "best" and "healthiest" embryos are implanted, and these would be the ideal ones for accurate research).
Cord blood overcomes a lot of these ethical issues imo, as being patient specific you dont then have to deal with the immune consequences of the adult stem cell transplant and the timeline of finding a donor etc. But even cord blood cells can't fix everything - cells are only truly totipotent in the early embryo: epigenetic marks cannot be erased.
Im very impressed someone with that HIV-resistance deletion made themselves available for this transplant in any case! It certainly is a step forward for the amazing technology of stem cells (regardless of where they come from)

This is IMO, so please don't attack me. I am one of the people that feel that a person becomes a person at the moment of conception. Yes, an embryo is 2 cells, 4 cells, 8 cells....whatever. But, it's still a human being at that point to me. I'm really torn on this subject, and now with the subject of IVF.

I'm all for research and finding a cure for diseases, but I have a hard time dealing with using our knowledge for fertilizing eggs and getting embryoes (to me, humans) that will be intentionally killed to keep someone who has lived a full live alive.

I'm sorry, and I'm sure I'm going to get a load of crap about this, but it's the circle of life....people die. It happens. If it didn't, we would have too many people to deal with. And before anyone jumps on me, my grandmother died from Alzheimers (at the age of 92) and I lost both my parents to cancer (age 68 and 66).

Science and medicine is a wonderful thing, but sometimes I think we're messing with things we shouldn't be messing with.

You are correct, Hope. We're not meant to live forever. Overpopulation is already bad enough.

Do I wish there were things that could make life easier for people with chronic diseases? Sure. But at what price? Do we trust ALL researchers not to manipulate the system? They've already proven they can do it by cloning animals. Where does it stop?

I applaud and respect you for your very opinion on this. You are consistent with your beliefs.

In another thread there was a debate about technology and religion. And some of the responses indicate that god has a hand in developing technologies. IVF and stem cell research are both scientific technologies, which implies that god has a hand in the death of embroyos. I still don't understand how someone can support both sides, unless like yourself, the difference is the belief on when life comes into being.

I DO believe that God had a hand in technology, as in he gave us, humans, the brains to actually create the radio, cars, breast implants, etc Now, do I think we always do the smartest thing and make the best decisions? Ummmm....NO.

It's funny, I never thought about what happened to the left over embroyos for IVF. I guess I just figured if they weren't accepted by the mother's body, it was just meant to be...I didn't think about the ones that weren't actually used. Honestly, I didn't actually know there WERE some that weren't used. That is entirely my fault for not educating myself more.

You are not the only one so don't blame yourself. This is why many of us that support embryonic stem cell research keep scratching our heads about why so many oppose it. Either ban everything that creates embryos outside a natural process or put what is normally discarded to good use. We don't know the full value of embryonic stem cell research because the science hasn't been applied to its full capabilities. If IVF is considered necessary, lets take it to a higher level of good.

What about all the young ones who never had a chance to lead a so-called 'full' life? Is it okay to let them die or suffer their whole lives?

Here's a heartbreaking story that was in Sunday's Parade magazine. It's about the daughter of David Axelrod & his wife Sharon.

http://www.parade.com/health/2009/02...-epilepsy.html

And yes, she was 'cured' [in a sense], but how about all the others who aren't as fortunate?

Wow, fascinating post. Thanks for sharing lots of information that I just didn't know anything about!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Doesn't look like all stem cells are this miracle that scientists tell us they are.

^That article only proves what has already been stated. Researchers need to be able to fully study embryonic stem cells.

As for living a full life, and previous articles posted, not only adults get sick with terminal diseases. Has a child at 5 or 10 lived a full life?