Positive results from stem cell therapy are seen usually within a month, and patients can request another treatment about 6 months after the first treatment presently.
This stem cell paradigm of therapy addresses the etiology of a disease state, instead of focusing on the symptoms only. As such, this is the practice of regenerative medicine with the implementation of SCT.
Some believe ethical restraints are needed regarding the use of ESCs for therapeutic reasons. Yet they improve the quality of life of those with devastating diseases which involves suffering without any relief.
So stem cell therapy and research may be the most right and ethical thing to do for such patients. Not only is the tremedous suffering relieved with those possessed with devistating diseases, their functional ability is restored for those who receive stem cell therapy.
Embryos are acquired from fertility clinics (IVFs) that have thousands routinely stored and are abnormally fertilized. This means that they could never go on to become a human, and would be destroyed otherwise.
Ironically, one could argue it is inappropriate to discard what may be valuable and ethical for others, potentially.
Most couples with frozen embryos would gladly give them to such research, surveys have concluded.
These embryos are believed by many to not be morally equivalent to human life, but only have the potential for life. And they are used for therapeutic cloning, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, and not reproductive cloning.
Ten states have banned this cloning out of ignorance, it seems. Bioethic principles, which are beneficience, or physician-centered decisions, as well as non-maleficence, which is first do no harm, are not corrupted.
Furthermore, autonomy, which is the patient???s right to determine their health, and justice or fairness remain intact.
Stem cells should be utilized for those terminally ill as well, many believe. Many are seeking stem cell therapy overseas due to restrictions that exist in the U.S. presently. The United Kingdom is believed to be the leader in stem cell research presently.
Dan Abshear
The Whole World Is Watching
Hope—and anxiety—run high as the first clinical trial of embryonic-stem-cell therapy begins this summer.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Six weeks before the hoopla over President Barack Obama's executive order lifting restrictions on embryonic-stem-cell research, Hans Keirstead, a scientist at the University of California, Irvine, was already sipping champagne. In 2005 Keirstead had published a study showing that a therapy derived from human embryonic stem cells could make partially paralyzed rats walk. Now he'd gotten word that the FDA had cleared the way for Geron, a small biotech company in California, to launch the first clinical trial of the treatment in human beings with spinal-cord injuries. It was incredible news,not just for Keirstead, who'd been wanting to invent a therapy for brain and spinal-cord disorders since he was 11 years old, but for scientists who believe human embryonic stem cells can teach them about complex diseases and potentially lead to cures. Keirstead, 41, and his team of scientists hailed the news over a case of chilled Veuve Clicquot. "We put the last bottle down about six hours later," Keirstead says. "It was just a really fun time."
Opinions about the moral status of an embryo won't change with presidential decrees or FDA decisions, so you can bet that the debate over embryonic-stem-cell research is far from over. But no matter how loud the chatter gets, the science is about to leave the Petri dish. For years, academic researchers have felt stymied by limitations imposed by George W. Bush that allowed federal funding only for research on 21 embryonic-stem-cell lines that already existed. Scientists who wanted to pursue newer cells had to find private dollars, some of which came from state initiatives. Geron, meanwhile, had its own money and was doggedly pursuing its mission to get human embryonic-stem-cell treatments into people. This summer, the company plans to enroll the first of up to 10 patients in a clinical trial that everyone—clinicians, scientists, biotechs, patients, ethicists—will be watching. There is plenty of excitement from people with spinal-cord injuries and their physicians, who can offer little hope for any significant improvement right now. But some scientists are concerned that the research may not be ready for prime time. The simple truth: even if all goes perfectly in the early stage of the trial, which tests for safety, no one with a spinal-cord injury is going to be cured any time soon. Peter Kiernan, chairman of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, says he is constantly balancing hope against hype among patients. "I feel like I'm in a car turning the steering wheel at the same time that I'm pushing on the brakes."
From the start, Geron's MO has been to put foot to accelator. It is, after all, a company ($200 million in the bank) whose primary goal—for patients and, of course, stockholders—is to get a treatment to market. In 2001 it funded Keirstead's research, which tested a therapy manufactured from human embryonic stem cells (from a Bush-approved cell line), called oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, in rats with a partial spinal-cord injury. When the cells were injected into the damaged area, they restored the spinal cord's insulation, which conducts nerve impulses from the brain to the rest of the body, allowing movement. In Keirstead's study, rats who had 10-month-old injuries didn't improve because too much scarring had developed. But the outcome was striking in animals whose injuries were just seven days old. Two months after treatment, rats who'd lost control of their trunk muscles, tail and hind legs—they could move, but not much—now exhibited "substantially improved locomotor ability." They could walk.
Nice if you're a rat. Now the company had to figure out how to move the cells into humans. It spent years creating the optimal oligodendrocyte progenitor cell, then focused on how to make a bunch of them identically under strict quality control—a process that's a whole lot harder with a living cell than a pill. It even designed a computer-controlled device to position the syringe and control the injection to be sure that the right number of cells went to the right spot. By the time Geron filed its application to the FDA last year, it had 22,500 pages of documentation. Total count: 24 studies, 1,977 rodents, $45 million.
Now Geron is negotiating with up to eight neurotrauma centers to conduct human trials. It will be recruiting people who have injuries in the thoracic, or middle region of the spine—paraplegics who are paralyzed from the chest area down. Because the injuries must be new—less than 14 days old—the patients Geron wants to start enrolling this summer are actually healthy people today who haven't yet been injured. But that hasn't stopped the interest among people who are already paralyzed. When the FDA approval was announced in January, Geron's voice-mail system broke down from the flood of calls.
It's not hard to see how important this trial is. Everybody you talk to in the spinal-cord community worries about patients traveling overseas for risky, ambiguous cellular therapies, forking out tens of thousands of dollars and praying for a miracle. Kate Willette, whose husband was paralyzed in a skiing accident eight years ago, understands the desire to get better. Earlier this month she attended a gathering of researchers and the spinal-cord community where she watched Keirstead, dressed in jeans and an untucked white shirt, tell the crowd, "I can't promise you anything, but we're doing our damnedest." Willette, who moderates an online forum for families of people with spinal-cord injuries, says Keirstead is cautious, but exudes a welcome sense of confidence. "I can't tell you how exciting it is," she says of the Geron trial. "Either it's going to work or it's not, but we'll have something to hang our hats on." Of Keirstead, she says: "He's a rock star."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss