NEWS: Lies and Exaggerations Fill Stem Cell Debate

POLITICS: Lies and Exaggerations Fill Stem Cell Debate

The debate over embryonic stem cell research has slowly and steadily become one of the more charged discussions in modern politics, crystallizing the different positions of key figures within both major parties and providing a key battleground in the culture war of scientific progress against religion. But given the complexity and the level of difficulty of the material being discussed, what seems to be happening more and more often is that political points are being won and lost based not on factual evidence or even well considered opinion, but inaccuracies and lies. With a Senate bill coming up for a vote soon that would overturn Bush's 2001 executive order that virtually tied the hands of any biologist or practitioner seeking to study embryonic stem cells to investigate their innate biology or therapeutic potential the debate has picked up steam once again. The problem with those who would oppose the bill is that some have been misrepresenting the facts.

So Prentice's "scientific" argument essentially boiled down to a trick that many learn to abandon after getting D's on their third grade research reports; finding a bunch of sources tangentially related to the subject at hand and referencing them to buttress an argument, one that the sources do not support. Fortunately the scientific community is founded on the principle of peer review, and now that his peers have reviewed the scientific citations used in making his argument in favor of stem cells derived from adult tissue over embryonically derived stem cells, it's clear that he is significantly exaggerating his case.



There is definitely some therapeutic potential in using stem cells derived from adult, rather than embryonic tissue to treat illnesses. But not nearly as much as Prentice and his backers, the Family Research Council, would have the Senate and the President believe. And certainly not enough to decide that it's time to close the book on the possibilities that embryonic stem cells may hold in treating those same, and other illnesses. It's true that embryonic stem cell advocates spend most of their time talking about the huge possibilities inherent in treatments derived from ES cells rather than their actual value in current clinical settings. What isn't known, however, is whether that is because they really won't ever pan out as the panacea some hope they will be, or because the government has tied the hands of those who are best capable of determining their utility. Until that question can be decided based on available scientific evidence, the opposition to stem cell research would seem to boil down a moral question instead. And seeing as how newly developed ES cell lines are generated from leftover embryos that won't be used to create a person anyway, those who are wringing their hands over this "moral quandary" seem to be splitting hairs.



All scientists are asking for is the ability to test and see just how effective ES cells can be in comparison with adult derived stem cells. Until the answer to that question is known, suspending research on ES cells is abandoning what could become a vital tool in helping people become well.

From my understanding, stem cell research can only be done by creating life and then killing it. I just don't think that's right. I do support the right to abortions - maybe they could develop a way to use the aborted fetuses for stell cell research. At least it wouldn't be a total waste.

They could also use shitbags like....dunno...those on death row for stem cell research.

They're not being created for stem cell research, they're being created to help couples with fertility problems conceive children. Because they can't predict how many embryos it will take to achieve the desired results, they usually produce more than end up being required. The excess embryos are, at the moment, simply discarded. Stem cell research would give them a purpose.

Do you kill a mosquito or ant without a moment's thought? That's a highly complex organism you've just put to death. The embryos used in stem-cell research are alive, but they hardly qualify as "a life".

People who believe in nonsense like Noah's Ark shouldn't stand in the way of legitimate scientific investigation.

That rather describes how life, above the plant level, works. But human life is different! Well, it can be different, it can get to the stage where is has feelings and cares about stuff. Should be care about human life which doesn't have feelings? If you lose a finger do you believe it should have a funeral of its own? We're getting near to the stage where that finger would have the potential for life. It could be cloned and produce any number of fully functional people.

I don't spend too much time worrying about the problems of things without feelings. In no small part because I can't see how you can have problems without feelings.

I guess it would be different if my finger could grow into another being...like a starfish. It's not that I have a problem wiht killing those who deserve it. It's with starting a life with the sole purpose of destroying it for its tissue. It's basically farming humans. Again, I am not THAT much against it to where I'd waste my time picketing. I was just giving my current opinion.

And by the way, Photoline, if your comment was for me - you are way off.

Malkav, I don't think we're talking about fertility clinics. I could be wrong, as I haven't read up on the subject heavily enough to know.

We are talking about fertility clinics. Really. Follow the links in legionnaire's article.

OK, I just read it again...and it was saying stem cell research in general. Or at least, that's what it read like.

And I don't click on links....unless they are guaranteed to be full of pop-ups and advertisements for porn sites.

That doesn't make any sense. If you oppose the ending of life, then oppose the ending of life. How on earth would the use of embryonic stem cells, which could cure fatal illnesses, somehow constitute less of a waste than an abortion, which you support?

The only "life" it sounds like you're against "ending" is the one type that has the potential to actually save lives. Seems kinda weird.

It's not as simple as "opposing the ending of life." I'm just not totally in favor of farming out humans. If you comprehended anything that I said, you'd know that I don't oppose abortions and I don't oppose the use of those fetuses.

Your statement, "The only "life" it sounds like you're against "ending" is the one type that has the potential to actually save lives. " doesn't even make sense nor is it applicable. Again, I'm not in favor of farming humans - creating life in a lab just to destroy it for parts.

I'm not judging you for your opinions. You should learn to do the same.

I've noticed that in the threads - people tend to attack one another instead of giving their views and reasons to support it.

Stem cell research would harvest embryonic stem cells from leftover embryos from fertility clinics. This is how they got the few viable stem cell lines that constitute everything they have to conduct research with under Bush's policies. This is where they would get more if Bush weren't a sanctimonious hypocrite.

That's why this line:

from the article. (And that line contains the link in question, although if you wanted to do some research on your own, I'm sure you could find considerably more in depth sources. I think I got my understanding of the situation from Peter Singer's book "The President of Good and Evil", but it's been a while.)

I beleive in Noah's Ark. I also support Stem Cell research. Maybe it's time to take the Christian Bashing down a notch or two. Not all of us are Born Again, Bible-Thumping, trying to shovel our brand of morals down your throat. Come to think of it. The majority of us are not. Be it un-used fertility clinic stock or an aborted fetus. If something can be learned to save a life then I support it.

Which is a moral position to hold. For a very long time it was a common moral position that cutting up dead bodies was wrong. It held back medical science for centuries. At the time transplants were about to begin there was a battle with people of morals on the issue.

I would have a great deal of respect for anyone who refused medical treatment, for themselves, on the basis that the treatment was developed by immoral means. But it doesn't seem to work that way. The very same type of person who held back surgery now has no problem with getting their heart by-pass. In the future how many people will reject a cure for their Parkinsons disease because of the immorality of it's development (should things turn out that way).

Another grand use of morals. They grant the ability to determine who should be killed. Which is not the same as determining who needs to be stopped.

Now am I wrong or was this just that federal money couldn't be used. I'll be honest I think that if it was going to be the cure all some people seem to think there would be plenty of private money poring in. Since there's not I have to wonder why?

And what are you conclusions then. Or could it be that you are just parrotting conservative bloggers? Like this one from Faux News

Or maybe it is that the Bush Administration and others who equate stem cell research with murder have created a hostile envionment - including a regulator nightmare.

That is the conclusion of the Marks and Clerk Biotechnology report which states, among other things:

This technology needs the full backing and support of the US government. When that happens, the environment will become far more condusive to investment and advancment.

Once again, Bush's bibilical fanatacism is fucking things up for everyone.

So from that report what we need isn't govt funding but better regulations regarding research. I could go along with that. We do need a realistic set of bioethics for this and many other issues to make it clear where the "line" is.

Someone with the Family Research Council doesn't understand science, or more likely, is just lying about it. How is this news?

Just to clarify. Stem cell research takes place now. I worked for 5 years in stem cell research as part of the Human Genome project.

So here goes, stem cell research 101:

1) Stem cells are sort of "generic" cells that are not yet specialized to be a particular cell (a skin cell, a bone cell, etc).

2) Adults do not have actual stem cells. Our cells are all differentiated (they are already specialized for a specific purpose).

3) When it comes to stem cells, there are different levels of differentiation. Some cells could become anything (like the first few cells in an embryo that can divide into and become any cell in the human body); some cells are partially differentiated (certain cells later in development that form the spine divide to become either bone cells or nerve cells).

4) Cells lines can be created which have been de-differentiated (kind of like making the cell un-grow back to a stem cell) from any adult cell using a variety of techniques. This is a tricky process and the stem cell lines produced have different characteristics from embryonic stem cells. An adult stem cell line that came from bone marrow can not turn into brain cells; only related things bone marrow or red blood cells. An "embryonic stem cell" can turn into any type of cell.

5) The term "embryonic stem cell" is a misnomer and is used mostly for political reasons. Cells from embryos make perfect stem cell lines because they are completely de-differentiated; in others words, these cells could be used to augment or replace any cell or treat any disease.

6) Aborted or miscarried fetuses could theoretically be used as a source of stem cells (provided the fetus is not fully developed). But I doubt this will ever happen because of the controversy involved.

7) Umbilical cord blood and afterbirth, particularly placenta, can be used for the de-differentiated blood cells (the mother and the child may have a different blood type, but the blood in the placenta is sort of neutral). These stem cell lines are partially differentiated. Meaning it is not possible for stem cells derived from these sources to become any cell. Thus they may not be as useful to treat any disease.

8) The primary source for research stem cells at present is cord blood, and to a lesser extent are placenta (partly due to the fact that these sources are not controversial).

9) The best source of stem cells... the only type that could be used to treat any disease... are embryos. The ONLY source for these at present are discarded embryos from fertility clinics. They are not farmed. They are not created for research. They would otherwise be flushed down a toilet. One batch of embryos that would be discarded creates stem cell lines which could result in a cure for many diseases.

For what it is worth.

Also, just to clarify, all you need are a few cells to create a stem cell line. Nothing need be killed.

thank you for bringing some fucking sanity to this argument.

it always amazes me when people who have no idea what they're talking about, and with little to no understanding of an issue, make up their minds about it.

even if you ban it in some place it just means people will travel to get it done. Case en point --> abortions ( please don't turn this into an abortion debate). They are allowed to a limited extent in most arab countries and in the republic of ireland so whenever somebody wants one doctors over here (and when I was in dublin) would refer you to a doctor someplace else to get it done but it would still be done none the less.

The same thing will happen even if stem cell research is limited using regulations, there will always be a place you can get it done.

Also the killing and living boo haha isn't a big issue as you only need a couple of cells from a developing embryo to get things done and the embroy won't miss them when they are gone anyway. The problem is people getting pregnant for the stem cells (which may not be a very big problem to some but would be a big one for others and isn't really being discussed)

As with most issues that are complex smart people who understand the nature of stem cell research tend to stay quiet so that they don't get backlash for or from anyone while people who don't know crap about the whole thing parade their ignorance in public for the most part in the vain hopes of gaining favour with a group or wedge of society.

Before I say what I need to, check this out!!
http://blogs.nature.com/nature/insightstemcells/2006/06/
It's a wealth of free information about current stem cell research.

It's a common misconception lately that there is no research being done on embryonic stem cells (ESC). ESC research is alive and well using existing cell lines, cells that were isolated prior to the political storm. There are also several private institutions across the U.S. that are doing some very cutting edge work with ESC. And these aren't money hungry biotech/drug companies that you might be thinking of. These are purely academic institutions, privately funded, and interested in curing disease for the public. Thankfully philanthropists across the country have recognized the incompetence of the current administration's scientific advisory board and started funding this critically important research. If you're interested in the research that is currently being done you can go to GOOGLE scholar and do a search for "embryonic stem cells, 2005 or 2006" and come up with at least a few interesting abstracts.
This leads to another problem, you can't access the entire article because these journals need to make money some how. But....but.... if you're still reading you might be interested in the link I posted above. It came out last month in Nature and is entirely free.

So what you're saying is that would be okay as long as the scientists are extra careful not to damage the tiny clumps of cells which are going to be thrown away no matter what while collecting stem cells then? I guess there's a reasonable compromise after all.

Oh, I don't know. I was under some weird understanding that it takes a sperm and an egg to create an embryo in the first place. Weird, huh? I guess you can make them with any chemicals found under the kitchen sink.

Additionally, you all seem to jump on someone for their opinion...AGAIN. Not to mention, I've admitted several times that I don't know a whole lot on the subject. There was only one person who offered any information whatsoever. Thanks as_seen_on_tv. I always just assumed the embryo had to be destroyed in the process for some reason. But since they aren't destroying it, what do they do with the embryo as it develops?

As for many others in here, I guess they follow threads are doing nothing more than looking for a fight. How productive. It's Sunday, maybe you can look through the "Funnies" for typos next.