Excellent breakthrough that may hopefully curb the debate a bit:

quote:

Stem cell finding spares embryos Amniotic fluid proves plentiful source By Paul Elias - Associated Press Writer Monday, January 8, 2007 Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb and produced a variety of tissue types from these cells — sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research. Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone. “Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well,” said Dr. Anthony Atala, head of Wake Forest’s regenerative medicine institute and senior researcher on the project. It took Atala’s team some seven years of research to determine the cells they found were truly stem cells that “can be used to produce a broad range of cells that may be valuable for therapy.” However, the scientists noted they still don’t know exactly how many different cell types can be made from the stem cells found in amniotic fluid. They also said that even preliminary tests in patients are years away. Still, Atala said the research reported in the scientific journal Nature Biotechnology expands far beyond similar work discussed at a heart research conference in November. There, Swiss researcher Simon Hoerstrup said he managed to turn amniotic fluid stem cells into heart cells that could be grown into replacement valves. Hoerstrup has yet to publish his work in a scientific journal. Atala said the new research has found even more promising stem cells with the potential to turn into many more medically useful replacement parts. “We have other cell lines cooking,” Atala said. The hallmark of human embryonic stem cells, which are created in the first days after conception, is the ability to turn into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body. Researchers are hopeful they can train these primordial cells to repair damaged organs in need of healthy cells. However, many people, including President Bush, oppose the destruction of embryos for any reason. The Bush administration has severely restricted federal funding for the embryo work since 2001, leading many scientists to search for alternative stem cell sources. The cells from amniotic fluid “can clearly generate a broad range of important cell types, but they may not do as many tricks as embryonic stem cells,” said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientist at the stem cell company Advanced Cell Technology. “Either way, I think this work represents a giant step forward for stem cell research.” It’s the latest advance in the so-called regenerative medicine field that has sprung from Atala’s lab in Winston-Salem, N.C. In April, Atala and his colleagues rebuilt bladders for seven young patients using live tissue grown in the lab. In the latest work, Atala’s team extracted a small number of stem cells swimming among the many other cell types in the amniotic fluid. One of the more promising aspects of the research is that some of the DNA of the amnio stem cells contained Y chromosomes, which means the cells came from the babies rather than the pregnant moms. Dr. George Daley, a Harvard University stem cell researcher, said that finding raises the possibility that someday expectant parents can freeze amnio stem cells for future tissue replacement in a sick child without fear of immune rejection. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/j...spares_embryos/

Appears to be quite promising.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Yeah--just wait till you and the Mrs. are expecting and you have some Cord Blood Bank salesman knocking on your door trying to rape and pillage your earnings for something you probably won't ever need...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yeah--just wait till you and the Mrs. are expecting and you have some Cord Blood Bank salesman knocking on your door trying to rape and pillage your earnings for something you probably won't ever need...

What? What are you talking about here?

Sidenote: did you have your baby born yet? If not, when?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What? What are you talking about here?

Probably only a minor correlation: There is an entity called the Cord Blood Bank. Basically they're selling you insurance. For a nominal fee (right around $2000 up front and then a monthly maintenance fee) they will extract and save some of your baby's umbilical cord blood (essentially equivalent to harvesting stem cells, I believe) which you can theoretically use if your baby has some abnormalities or crazy diseases in the first few years of development. I think the blood expires after a few years. Needless to say it's an emotional sell, but in the end we opted to pass. It helps the decision making process if you know your family history, but pharmacuetical sales reps can be awfully seductive.

quote:

Sidenote: did you have your baby born yet? If not, when?

Not yet--we just entered the long awaited second trimester a few weeks ago. Survey says sometime in early/mid June.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Probably only a minor correlation: There is an entity called the Cord Blood Bank. Basically they're selling you insurance. For a nominal fee (right around $2000 up front and then a monthly maintenance fee) they will extract and save some of your baby's umbilical cord blood (essentially equivalent to harvesting stem cells, I believe) which you can theoretically use if your baby has some abnormalities or crazy diseases in the first few years of development. I think the blood expires after a few years. Needless to say it's an emotional sell, but in the end we opted to pass. It helps the decision making process if you know your family history, but pharmacuetical sales reps can be awfully seductive.

Wow. I never heard of that at all. Without knowing much more about it, I'd say you made the right decision. It almost sounds like a scam, especially since we're really only in the infancy of stem cell development (no pun intended).

quote:

Not yet--we just entered the long awaited second trimester a few weeks ago. Survey says sometime in early/mid June.

Hehe, a Gemini eh? Be on your toes for that one - us Geminis can get a little screwy .

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

The issue I continue to have with some stem cell researchers is their "all or nothing" attitude. Umbilical stem cells have been around just as long as their omnipotent embryonic brothers. So, you can still make all the cures you'd like with umbilical cells, but you can't clone. So everyone gets their panties in a bunch because science demands these omnipotent fetal stem cells when everything but cloning can be accomplished using umbilical cells.

Oh well...

This has actually been known for some time. It's common sense that there are a huge amount of stem cells somewhere near the baby, they don't come from magic, you know. Like NeoPhono has said, the Umbilical Cord also has a good amount of stem cells inside it.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono The issue I continue to have with some stem cell researchers is their "all or nothing" attitude. Umbilical stem cells have been around just as long as their omnipotent embryonic brothers. So, you can still make all the cures you'd like with umbilical cells, but you can't clone. So everyone gets their panties in a bunch because science demands these omnipotent fetal stem cells when everything but cloning can be accomplished using umbilical cells. Oh well...

I disagree, as do the broad majority of researchers in the field. The stance is not an "all or nothing" as far as I know. Quite the contrary - there's ample research in the field of somatic/adult stem cells from umbilical cords. The problem and difference, however, lies in the fact that they are multipotent cells, meaning they primarily give rise to a related family of cells within that derived tissue only. There are some exceptions, and continuing research is showing a bit more diversity, but it's still limited. Contrast that to embryonic stem cells which are pluripotent, easy to grow in a cell culture, and give rise to a much greater diversity of cell types (skin, heart, nerve, etc.). The difference is clearly in potential between the two, which is why researchers pursue the embryonic stem cells with greater need and funding (which would be thrown away by fertility clinics anyway) versus umbilical stem cells.

The possibilities of amniotic fluid, which Marc correctly asserted has been around for some time, cut through these arguments and differences between the two. The difference between when it was first discovered a coupla years back and now is researchers have been able to refine the process to allow more pluripotency, as the article posted describes.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hehe, a Gemini eh? Be on your toes for that one - us Geminis can get a little screwy .

Great..on top of a Taurus wife that I routinely butt heads with! Where are all of the Aquarians?!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I disagree, as do the broad majority of researchers in the field. The stance is not an "all or nothing" as far as I know. Quite the contrary - there's ample research in the field of somatic/adult stem cells from umbilical cords. The problem and difference, however, lies in the fact that they are multipotent cells, meaning they primarily give rise to a related family of cells within that derived tissue only. There are some exceptions, and continuing research is showing a bit more diversity, but it's still limited. Contrast that to embryonic stem cells which are pluripotent, easy to grow in a cell culture, and give rise to a much greater diversity of cell types (skin, heart, nerve, etc.). The difference is clearly in potential between the two, which is why researchers pursue the embryonic stem cells with greater need and funding (which would be thrown away by fertility clinics anyway) versus umbilical stem cells. The possibilities of amniotic fluid, which Marc correctly asserted has been around for some time, cut through these arguments and differences between the two. The difference between when it was first discovered a coupla years back and now is researchers have been able to refine the process to allow more pluripotency, as the article posted describes.

I disagree. There are three germ layers in a developing (or derivatives in an adult) human and umbilical stem cells can give rise to each. Yes, umbilical cells are not omnipotent (totipotent), but they are pluripotnet. It was once believed they were further differentiated (multipotent), but even as far back as 2001,maybe farther, pluripotent umbilical stem cells had been harvested. As far as the "ease" of culture, I have not heard anything as to umbilical cells being more difficult to maintain than embryonic lines, but I'd be happy to change my mind if you could find some sources.

We also have to realize that even science is about compromise. If we have a viable source of stem cells, that could lead to the exact results advocates of fetal stem cells are pushing, we have to "take what we can get." We can easily get past the stigma much of the country has about using stem cells from aborted fetus by using umbilical lines.

I'd lastly add that this is not a "new" issue. I took a grad course in biological ethics as an undergrad, and our professor went on and on about the disservice science was doing by pressing for the use of embryonic stem cells when umbilical lines could give rise to the exact same discoveries. Regardless of the source, stem cell therapies are still theoretical, and although we'd like to think they are the "Holy Grail" of future medical treatments, we don't know how successful or unsuccessful their use will ever be.

If you all only knew how hot the girl from the Cord Bank was!

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I disagree. There are three germ layers in a developing (or derivatives in an adult) human and umbilical stem cells can give rise to each. Yes, umbilical cells are not omnipotent (totipotent), but they are pluripotnet. It was once believed they were further differentiated (multipotent), but even as far back as 2001,maybe farther, pluripotent umbilical stem cells had been harvested. As far as the "ease" of culture, I have not heard anything as to umbilical cells being more difficult to maintain than embryonic lines, but I'd be happy to change my mind if you could find some sources.

Here's a few sources. The first is from NIH (as you know, the largest government-funded science organization):

quote:

V. What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become. Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

The first paragraph shows some agreement with your statement. I also agree and mentioned that recent research has shown more pluripotency with adult stem cell lines. However it is still generally regarded as not as fruitful as embryonic stem cells.

Another source is from the Stem Cell Research Foundation:

quote:

Adult stem cell — Stem cells found in various tissues of an adult organism that remain in an undifferentiated, or unspecialized, state. Adult stem cells can renew themselves and (with certain limitations) differentiate to yield all the specialized cell types of the tissue from which it originated. For example, a heart stem cell can give rise to a heart muscle cell. Some scientists feel that adult stem cells may be able to give rise to a variety of different cell types, and ongoing research is exploring this issue. Currently, several limitations exist to using adult stem cells: * Although many different kinds of multipotent adult stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. * They also may not have the ability to multiply like embryonic stem cells do. * Adult stem cells can be difficult to isolate and purify because they are often present in minute quantities. * Finally, during the course of their lifetime, adult stem cells may accumulate DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies. http://www.stemcellresearchfoundati...ew/Glossary.htm

Another source at the University of Wisconsin:

quote:

Why not derive stem cells from adults? There are several approaches now in human clinical trials that utilize mature stem cells (such as blood-forming cells, neuron-forming cells and cartilage-forming cells). However, because adult cells are already specialized, their potential to regenerate damaged tissue is very limited: skin cells will only become skin and cartilage cells will only become cartilage. Adults do not have stem cells in many vital organs, so when those tissues are damaged, scar tissue develops. Only embryonic stem cells, which have the capacity to become any kind of human tissue, have the potential to repair vital organs. Another limitation of adult stem cells is their inability to proliferate in culture. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which have a capacity to reproduce indefinitely in the laboratory, adult stem cells are difficult to grow in the lab and their potential to reproduce diminishes with age. Therefore, obtaining clinically significant amounts of adult stem cells may prove to be difficult. Studies of adult stem cells are important and will provide valuable insights into the use of stem cell in transplantation procedures. However, only through exploration of all types of stem cell research will scientists find the most efficient and effective ways to treat diseases. http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/s...ls/facts.html#5

Similar findings can be searched here as well:

http://www.isscr.org/

And my own school, KU Medical Center:

http://www.kumc.edu/stemcell/

I imagine similar findings are given at most universities.

quote:

We also have to realize that even science is about compromise. If we have a viable source of stem cells, that could lead to the exact results advocates of fetal stem cells are pushing, we have to "take what we can get." We can easily get past the stigma much of the country has about using stem cells from aborted fetus by using umbilical lines.

I don't believe it's a push of "taking what we can get". Again, it's demonstrated that there is research being given (especially with more government funding) to adult stem cell lines. However, as the Univ. of Wisconsin website asserted above:

quote:

Studies of adult stem cells are important and will provide valuable insights into the use of stem cell in transplantation procedures. However, only through exploration of all types of stem cell research will scientists find the most efficient and effective ways to treat diseases.

We need to understand quite a bit more about how cells become what they become in order to effectively treat a disease. Failure to do so would limit the full potential of our understanding. To me this is a shortsighted mindset of science to be within the boundaries of limiting research to a particular branch that does not have near as much potential to answering these questions (i.e. Adult stem cells).

I also believe that new discoveries in extraction techniques for embryonic stem cells must also not be overlooked:

http://www.advancedcell.com/press-r...ntial-of-embryo

This entails that a cell can be extracted without damaging embryonic development. As with most issues in this field, it's still in it's infancy, but it shows some very good promise and can also help curb the issues of contention as well.

quote:

I'd lastly add that this is not a "new" issue. I took a grad course in biological ethics as an undergrad, and our professor went on and on about the disservice science was doing by pressing for the use of embryonic stem cells when umbilical lines could give rise to the exact same discoveries. Regardless of the source, stem cell therapies are still theoretical, and although we'd like to think they are the "Holy Grail" of future medical treatments, we don't know how successful or unsuccessful their use will ever be.

Granted, therapies and practical uses are in the very early stages. However the knowledge gained, I believe, from understanding the development of these stem cells from embryos into a myriad of other cells is what is so vital to our understanding and must not be ignored. And if your professor stated directly that the exact same discoveries are evident between the two, I would respectfully disagree and would like to see his sources of information.

And again, I have a difficult time accepting any argument against embryonic stem cells when, in fact, I see very little to no argument from that corner about fertility clinics trashing stem cells anyway. If they are so fervent in their pro-life beliefs, I would like to see more argument of this seemingly strange double standard.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...