MEDICINE

The Real Lessons Of Stem Cells

A Bush veteran weighs in on President Obama's decision to expand federal funding. Why science could finally end the debate.

By Yuval Levin | NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 21, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Mar 30, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: redbeard777 @ 05/19/2009 2:00:44 AM

    Excellent article. Two thumbs up for morality not interfering with true science. Usually when science collides with the truth is when it is being rushed or fudged.

  • Posted By: mshih @ 04/08/2009 10:48:29 AM

    Here come with a brand new bioinformatic site focusing on
    stem cell,breast cancer,Influenze Autism,COPD,ADHD ,Alzheimer's, brain tumor, Diabetes related genes.
    My new web site is

    http://www.gene2gene.com
    http://www.Classification.htm
    http://www.gene2gene.com/Vegf.htm Breast cancer/ Brain tumor
    http://www.gene2gene.com/P53.htm stem cell/Breast cancer
    Go take a look! Not finish yet.

    Genes created from 2002 to 2005 have not being up dated !
    Eat beef is a major reason for Japan woman's breast cancer,
    and stomach cancer for me!


    I have not touch siRNA,mRNA,PAX3,RNUX1,PSCA,CD34,GDNF!

    Michael Shih, creator of http://www.biocarta.com
    I am a severe handicap person now, because of an severe accident on 2002!
    Gene2gene was developed after the accident, So I think I recover very good!


  • Posted By: dreiarossi @ 03/28/2009 10:56:20 AM

    I would like to know, please, why didn't you explain also, that the stem-cells potentialy used in research come from couples that already had a baby or more, and those stem-cells are kept for while, the couple needs to pay for it, and after these stem-cells are thrown away. Not anymore, because people on the labs are keeping it for research. Why M.Bush ad other had never tried to "save this human lifes"? "They" could been through away but not used to save others human adults lifes?

  • Posted By: dreiarossi @ 03/28/2009 10:47:36 AM

    Why didn't you mention that the stem-cells which are given to research are normally came from "parents" that have had a baby,they have fertilized a few eggs just in case, and after keeping it for while,and the couple have to pay to keep it ,the stem-cells are thrown away? These stem-cells, not necessary to give lifes anymore have always been eliminated after while, and nobody included M. Bush have thought for their "deaths". Why you didn't explain these in your article, and your editor accepted this also,please? Thank you.

  • Posted By: dreiarossi @ 03/28/2009 10:46:13 AM

    Why didn't you mention that the stem-cells which are given to research are normally came from "parents" that have had a baby,they have fertilized a few eggs just in case, and after keeping it for while,and the couple have to pay to keep it ,the stem-cells are thrown away? These stem-cells, not necessary to give lifes anymore have always been eliminated after while, and nobody included M. Bush have thought for their "deaths". Why you didn't explain these in your article, and your editor accepted this also,please? Thank you.

  • Posted By: Qidisrupt @ 03/28/2009 12:08:22 AM

    It was very moral to use those stem cells to save this gentleman's life....and his wife and kids are thankful he's around, too. Vital78, if you want to "save" all the stem cells that are produced in labs, then you can be the one to be financially responsible to raise the stem cell babies; have at it. It is immoral and cruel to save all the stem cells for producing babies and then throw them in an orphanage so they can be ignored and fall through the cracks of society.

  • Posted By: Burke99 @ 03/27/2009 10:07:33 AM

    To vital78: I don't mean this ina bad way, but I would be very curious to know how you felt if you were actually in that person's shoes you are trying to advise and comfort.

  • Posted By: vital78 @ 03/27/2009 2:17:03 AM

    To those who say that our tax dollars are a manifestation of our personal contributions to this medical effort, I say that this was never the issue and that it was always beyond any of us individually and was always a developing goal to which we never really arive even as a society. It is better to arive safely and complete than to arive and only be half a society made of half people with false premises that lead yet other subtle but profoundly half actions in all areas. There are and always will be other ways to contribute in service, dollars and intellect to such sufferers and causes while acknowleging the pain and unyeilding desire for a cure with real results.

  • Posted By: vital78 @ 03/27/2009 1:59:21 AM

    To the person who suffers from the diseases that are the most crippling, I say that we are with you and that God is with you. Know that people are diligently working towards these medical goals and that we are all grateful that we have the hope of soon curing illnesses that our grandparents never dreamed possilble. Still, we must be brave and know that we must find peace beyond the physical and know of things higher because there will always be circumstances and we must come to learn what the lessons and powers of the spirit are meant for us in the blessing of recieving wisdom in hard times that can always come whether in friends, body, mind or spirit and we should rush to the ends of others to preserve our own at a horrible price of a loss of peace and conscience which is greater than all in our humanity. Sincerely, me

  • Posted By: vital78 @ 03/27/2009 1:37:47 AM

    Sorry, I must not be a very good teacher yet. What I meant to say is... that I see no place for stem cells or that they are some how our enemy. You get the drift.

  • Posted By: vital78 @ 03/27/2009 1:20:04 AM

    That's not to suggest, however that I see not place for the use of stem cells is some how our enemy. We can do enough and quickly to help almost unending numbers of people, but it should never be at the cost of our hamanity itself. I don't think that people need to fertilize every cell. That's a separate issue and belief.

  • Posted By: vital78 @ 03/27/2009 1:13:46 AM

    I am fervent about saving stem cells because the line is not gray on the large scale and it applies even if we are looking at small versions of it. Morality comes before medicine because even if we could live forever using medicine, it would not save us from ourselves once we have chosen to disregard ourselves as simply animals in the pursuit of self-protection and pleasure which really are the bane of humanity even in simple evaluations of what goes on in an elementary school room of which I have plenty of personal experience managing. We are not children, lets not act like it. Eternal life is not life without life.

  • Posted By: Qidisrupt @ 03/26/2009 11:17:07 PM

    If some people are so fervent about saving the stem cells, then it is reasonable that they should be the ones who should raise the stem cell babies when they are born. Have at it. I know of a person who had a rare form of cancer....he is married with kids....he took a risk and received experimental stem cell treatment that was very successful and he remains alive and healthy to be able to care for his family. Anything can be used or abused. Invitro fertilization is very beneficial for parents who are not able to conceive children by normal means. Of course, responsible IVF is perfectly fine....then IVF can be abused....all of us are very aware of Nadya Suleman and her sick abuse of IVF. So, hey, if you truly want to save these stem cells that are produced in labs, go for it....but, you better be able to financially afford to care for the stem cell babies....if not, then just throw them in an orphanage and go your merry way???

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/26/2009 5:46:24 PM

    Breakthrough Study Finds Adult Stem Cells

    ScienceDaily (June 25, 2005) ??? PITTSBURGH (June 23, 2005) -- In a ground-breaking study, scientists at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh have discovered that adult, or post-natal, stem cells have the same ability as embryonic stem cells to multiply, a previously unknown characteristic indicating that post-natal stem cells may play an important therapeutic role.

    Adult and post-natal stem cells are often overlooked in favor of embryonic stem cells in the national debate over the therapeutic use of stem cells. Until now, it has been generally believed that embryonic stem cells had a greater capacity to multiply than post-natal stem cells, making them more desirable to research as a potential treatment, according to Johnny Huard, PhD, director of the Growth and Development Laboratory at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.

    "Scientists have typically believed that adult or post-natal stem cells grow old and die much sooner than embryonic stem cells, but this study demonstrates that is not the case," said Dr. Huard, senior author of the study. "The entire world is closely following the advances in stem cell research, and everyone is interested in the potential of stem cells to treat everything from diabetes to Parkinson's disease. But there are also many ethical concerns surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells, concerns that you don't have with post-natal or adult stem cells. My belief is that this study should erase doubts scientists may have had about the potential effectiveness of post-natal stem cells."

    Researchers from Children's and the University of Pittsburgh in Dr. Huard's laboratory were able to expand post-natal stem cells to a population level comparable to that reached by researchers using embryonic stem cells. Previous research has found that embryonic stem cells could undergo more than 200 population doublings before the cells began to die. A population doubling is a method of measuring the age of a population of cells.

    Bridget Deasy, PhD, a scientist in Dr. Huard's laboratory, was first author of the study. Dr. Deasy, a research assistant professor in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, discovered that a unique population of muscle-derived stem cells was able to undergo more than 200 population doublings, as well. These post-natal cells were able to undergo population doublings while maintaining their ability to regenerate muscle in an animal model, a key finding indicating that they could maintain their treatment potential.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/26/2009 5:47:54 PM

      This ability to self-replenish is significant because in order for stem cells to be used for treatment, a large quantity of the cells would be required.

      The findings are published in the July 1, 2005, issue of Molecular Biology of the Cell, published by the American Society for Cell Biology. The paper is under consideration for Molecular Biology of Cell paper of the year.

      There also may be important advantages to post-natal stem cells when it comes to autoimmunity, according to Dr. Huard, deputy director of the McGowan Institute of Regenerative Medicine and associate professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry, and Bioengineering at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
      The use of embryonic stem cells could be complicated by issues of rejection, with the recipient's immune system rejecting the foreign embryonic stem cells. With post-natal stem cells taken from the recipient and then reintroduced in an autologous manner, rejection would not be an issue.

      Dr. Huard is one of the world's top cell biologists researching the potential therapeutic use of stem cells. He currently is working with the stem cells he discovered while searching for a cure for Duchene muscular dystrophy (DMD), a genetic disease that is estimated to affect one in every 3,500 boys. DMD is the most common form of muscular dystrophy affecting children and patients often die in early adulthood because of heart damage.

      In addition to searching for a cure for DMD, Dr. Huard's laboratory also is researching the use of stem cells to repair injured muscle following sports-related injuries, as well as to treat cardiac, joint and bone injuries. His work with these stem cells has potential implications ranging from repairing heart muscle damaged by heart attack or disease to the prevention of rejection during organ and tissue transplantation.

      ###
      The study was supported by the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Institutes of Health, the William F. and Jean W. Donaldson Chair at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and the Henry J. Mankin Chair at the University of Pittsburgh.

      For more information on Dr. Huard's research and Children's, please visit the hospital's Web site at www.chp.edu.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050624102413.htm

  • Posted By: jean pierre aussant @ 03/26/2009 5:31:39 PM

    Stem cell research is tantamount to intergenerational vampirism. In the very end, you kill young human beings to manufacture medecine in order to regenerate older people. All the lobbies and pollitically correct laws of the world will never change this basic fact.
    jean pierre aussant

  • Posted By: DrewCAENG @ 03/24/2009 6:27:31 PM

    How backwards can we become as a country? Stem cells have the potential to benefit hundreds of millions. Adult cells, although promising are NOT the same, every scientific mainstream community will back that up, and why would they lie? What benefit is it to them to lie? O and all of the "human lives" that have been "saved" over the last 8 years during this ban, where have the stem cells ended up? In the dumpster! Literally. Millions of them are thrown out everyday. What we have done is held back 8 years of innovation and contributed to a brain drain of Americas best and brightest over-seas - Thanks Christian Right ! Another vaulable contribution!

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/26/2009 4:10:59 PM

      Your welcome! Should I thank you for the 41million aborted children that the United States have destroyed? Talking about all the brilliant minds that are lost....Now you want to champion the idea of harvesting human being for the parts....TRUE HUMANITARIAN YOU ARE....NOT!

  • Posted By: kshortSD @ 03/24/2009 1:47:45 PM

    Where is the ethical dilema? Can someone explain this to me? The embryos used for research are NEVER going to become children, they are going to be discarded anyway. Is there really a difference between throwing embryos in the trash and using them for valuable research??

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/24/2009 4:37:13 PM

      You are kidding right? First let???s define what a embryo is. Embryo is a HUMAN offspring in initial developmental stage. There fore they are human beings. The ethical dilemma is why we are producing human offspring to kill them and later on harvest them for science!

      Do you even know what the abortion clinics do with aborted children? They harvest certain parts for medicine and other crazy things. This is a billion dollar business we are talking about so when you have opponents for abortion you can better believe that they are profiting from the aborted children.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 03/25/2009 4:22:27 PM

        Again, these aren't from aborted fetuses. Embryonic cells are from clusters of IVF cells created in labs.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/26/2009 4:02:57 PM

          Call them what you want....it is harvesting human beings for parts period!....read other article before you respond....

      • Posted By: kshortSD @ 03/25/2009 12:10:35 PM

        Okay, then your problem should be with IVF treatments, which create the doomed embryos in the first place. Why aren't you protesting THAT?

  • Posted By: DrewCAENG @ 03/24/2009 7:36:22 PM

    Bojack do u want to stop cutting and pasting your conviluded tyrant over and over again?

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/26/2009 3:42:50 PM

      Bojack do u want to stop cutting and pasting your conviluded tyrant over and over again?

      LOL... I will stop the cutting and pasting once someone on this blog addresses the issue that is presented by the scientist. It is funny that once a scientist has spoken out about this subject no one has a answer or can refute what she has said scientifically.

  • Posted By: frmmike @ 03/26/2009 12:14:17 PM

    Morals are the standards a society tries to live by. Ethics are the personal and profession???s standards individuals use as guidance for action. Bush???s ruling imposed the moral standard of only a segment of the US society to overrule the ethics of the scientific community in the absence of the whole society???s agreement. It was a misuse of authority because it did not reflect the conclusion of the whole society???s debate and because it was not based on scientific knowledge but on only hopeful scientific areas of inquiry. It was politics, a sometimes necessary evil, but not in this case, and certainly not leadership by the President for all the nation???s people.

  • Posted By: xmissile @ 03/25/2009 11:21:56 PM

    Let's say hypothetically that tomorrow the S. Koreans announce that they have developed a novel way to grow a pancreas based purely on research using embryonic stem cells from embryos. If the procedure could save you or your loved one's life, what would you do? I ask this to all who object to this kind of research based on moral grounds. I can tell you that if my wife or child could benefit from this, I would take a second mortgage on my house, take a second job, sell everything I owned, claw with my fingernails at a chance for life for them. And this is what you would do as well, trade your convictions and drown in your hypocrisy.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse