Article
This article discusses a new use of stem cells being tested in Islamabad. I'm pretty sure all of you know what an organ transplant is, but some of you might not know that if the organ doesn't come from a close family member (and sometimes even if it is), it can cause serious complications, most notably the recipient of an organ's immune system recognizing the organ as an "attacker" and attacking the transplanted organ. There are special drugs that recipients of those transplants must take that repress their immune systems, but they have serious complications and would have to be taken every day for the rest of their lives. A new strategy to combat that without medication that is being tested is a few days after the transplant, injecting a small amount of stem cells into the area, in hopes to generate a modified immune system that won't reject the organs. So far, the results have been phenomenal. From the article, "Although the patients started off with the same anti-rejection drugs,
the aim was to reduce these slowly, hopefully withdrawing them
completely over time. Five out of the eight patients involved in the
trial managed to do this within a year." 47-year-old Lindsay Porter, from Chicago, a recipient of the treatment said: "I hear about the challenges recipients have to face with their medications and it is significant. It’s almost surreal when I think about it because I feel so healthy and normal." If this proves to have long-term effectiveness, it could be a huge breakthrough in medical science.
Showing posts with label Stem Cell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stem Cell. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Religious responses to Stem Cell Research
While searching around on YouTube today, I found a rather interesting BBC radio broadcast which briefly discussed the religious controversies over embryonic stem cell research in response to President Obama lifting the ban on stem cell research. The two sides of the argument were represented by Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, and by Omar Sultan Haque, a Muslim philosopher.
Radio broadcast
The interview started out with Land stating that he was "extremely disappointed" in Obama's decision and claims that he does not support "experimentation that would lead to the death of unborn babies." He then goes on to explain that such research is unnecessary because of the recent discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. He describes iPSCs as a "gift" to the president that allows for the benefits of stem cell research without causing death. The interviewer then asks Haque to describe the Muslim view on embryonic stem cells. Haque claims there are no direct sources for this, but claims he would not characterize embryonic stem cells as unborn babies and pointedly states that Land used the phrase to draw an emotional response from the audience. He then goes on to state that historically, Christianity tended to support Haque's view over Land's. The interviewer ask Haque if he would support "other research" (presumably iPSC's) and Haque states that he would. However, Haque changes the subject slightly and begins to attack Land's arguments. He asks Land to specify how embryonic stems differ from any other type of cell, to which Land states the primary difference is time, and that "an embryo becomes a human being", unlike a skin cell. Haque then rhetorically responds "why don't we convict women for genocide just by having their normal cycles?" The interviewer steps in and asks Land what he believes Obama's message is concerning the conflict between science and religion. Land replies that he believes Obama is removing the morality from the scientific world, which could lead to horrific experiments like those performed by the Third Reich. The interviewer presents the same question to Haque, who bats it aside in favor of criticizing Land's word choice, but implying that he does not believe religious beliefs should influence sound scientific principles.
I found this broadcast quite interesting because although both sides used arguments I've heard before, they both brought up good points that I had not considered before. As pointed out by Haque, Land attempted to appeal emotionally to the listeners, which is a logical fallacy. However, the idea that embryonic stem cells could in fact be seen as human beings is the most common argument I've seen against stem cell research. Obviously I really can't back this up, but I would say this is not the case, it's simply a group of cells; they are not aware of their existence, can't feel pain, differentiated into a complex organism, or done anything else that truly defines them from any other cell as an independent human being beyond having a unique genome.
Although I agreed with Haque, I was annoyed by the fact that he spent very little time expressing his own views and instead preferred to attack Land's ideas. Also, his comment relating a woman's natural cycle to genocide was also a logical fallacy. But through his attacks, he exposed the flaws in the anti-stem cell position. He also briefly mentioned that he more or less subscribes to the idea that people become more human as they continue to exist. Although I would not say an infant is less human than an 80-year-old, I would argue that for reasons I mentioned before, a human embryo should be classified as a group of cells, not as a person.
Despite the fact that I disagreed with Land's view, he did bring up a good point. Although I highly doubt that embryonic stem cell research could lead to a second Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, he does bring up that there is no definite moral standard regarding what is and is not acceptable treatment of humans and animals in medical studies.
Radio broadcast
The interview started out with Land stating that he was "extremely disappointed" in Obama's decision and claims that he does not support "experimentation that would lead to the death of unborn babies." He then goes on to explain that such research is unnecessary because of the recent discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. He describes iPSCs as a "gift" to the president that allows for the benefits of stem cell research without causing death. The interviewer then asks Haque to describe the Muslim view on embryonic stem cells. Haque claims there are no direct sources for this, but claims he would not characterize embryonic stem cells as unborn babies and pointedly states that Land used the phrase to draw an emotional response from the audience. He then goes on to state that historically, Christianity tended to support Haque's view over Land's. The interviewer ask Haque if he would support "other research" (presumably iPSC's) and Haque states that he would. However, Haque changes the subject slightly and begins to attack Land's arguments. He asks Land to specify how embryonic stems differ from any other type of cell, to which Land states the primary difference is time, and that "an embryo becomes a human being", unlike a skin cell. Haque then rhetorically responds "why don't we convict women for genocide just by having their normal cycles?" The interviewer steps in and asks Land what he believes Obama's message is concerning the conflict between science and religion. Land replies that he believes Obama is removing the morality from the scientific world, which could lead to horrific experiments like those performed by the Third Reich. The interviewer presents the same question to Haque, who bats it aside in favor of criticizing Land's word choice, but implying that he does not believe religious beliefs should influence sound scientific principles.
I found this broadcast quite interesting because although both sides used arguments I've heard before, they both brought up good points that I had not considered before. As pointed out by Haque, Land attempted to appeal emotionally to the listeners, which is a logical fallacy. However, the idea that embryonic stem cells could in fact be seen as human beings is the most common argument I've seen against stem cell research. Obviously I really can't back this up, but I would say this is not the case, it's simply a group of cells; they are not aware of their existence, can't feel pain, differentiated into a complex organism, or done anything else that truly defines them from any other cell as an independent human being beyond having a unique genome.
Although I agreed with Haque, I was annoyed by the fact that he spent very little time expressing his own views and instead preferred to attack Land's ideas. Also, his comment relating a woman's natural cycle to genocide was also a logical fallacy. But through his attacks, he exposed the flaws in the anti-stem cell position. He also briefly mentioned that he more or less subscribes to the idea that people become more human as they continue to exist. Although I would not say an infant is less human than an 80-year-old, I would argue that for reasons I mentioned before, a human embryo should be classified as a group of cells, not as a person.
Despite the fact that I disagreed with Land's view, he did bring up a good point. Although I highly doubt that embryonic stem cell research could lead to a second Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, he does bring up that there is no definite moral standard regarding what is and is not acceptable treatment of humans and animals in medical studies.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Ridiculous argument against stem cells
So I was lurking around on the internet when I had found a link to this blog. I couldn't believe what I had read at first because of how ridiculous this post was. Basically what it says is German scientist have found a cure for aids using stem cells. This obviously isn't true or there would've been more news about it, but anyways it says that the scientists are trying to hurt america by saving people (focusing on they gay community) from this deadly disease. Because of course saving thousands of people using stem cells is just pure evil. Then they take the crazy a bit further by saying,
Germany, as we all know, is where the Naziscame from, so it should come as no surprise that they have teamed up with something so librul as stem cells to figure out something so evil as curing a disease that has killed so manySo because Germany is where Nazis came from, they're evil? seriously, this is what made my jaw drop, that's like saying all Americans are evil because of our bloodied past. Yes, what we did was wrong, but that is in the past. And because Aids had first appeared in the gay community makes it okay for us to allow the deaths of so many people. I just though all the people of this blog would find this article interesting, if not absolutely absurd.peoplegay people.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Stem Cell research has often been at the front of the minds of people. One person could think it's absolutely fantastic, another could think it makes for pointless destruction of human life. Luckily, this article gives relatively unbiased information on the subject.
First off, stem cells come from 3 main sources: adult bone marrow, an umbilical cord, or blastocysts (embryos). These cells can then be used and manipulated to fix a few problems in the human body. Osteroperosis (how do you even spell that?) would be an obvious one as the stem cells could replace the deterioration in the joints.
It touches on the controversial issues of stem cells, too. Here, it begins to lean way over onto the supporting side of the research. The entire time, stem cells are put in a positive light pointing toward the use of stem cells for a more medically advanced future. I don't completely agree with this point of view, as I think that the issues should be brought to light and stem cells put under some skepticism just in case of a medical downfall that may or may not be caused by such an up-and-coming technique. It presents many pros, too, don't get me wrong. But I think that the article is much too focused on the pros.
First off, stem cells come from 3 main sources: adult bone marrow, an umbilical cord, or blastocysts (embryos). These cells can then be used and manipulated to fix a few problems in the human body. Osteroperosis (how do you even spell that?) would be an obvious one as the stem cells could replace the deterioration in the joints.
It touches on the controversial issues of stem cells, too. Here, it begins to lean way over onto the supporting side of the research. The entire time, stem cells are put in a positive light pointing toward the use of stem cells for a more medically advanced future. I don't completely agree with this point of view, as I think that the issues should be brought to light and stem cells put under some skepticism just in case of a medical downfall that may or may not be caused by such an up-and-coming technique. It presents many pros, too, don't get me wrong. But I think that the article is much too focused on the pros.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
ESCs Are So Last Month
Just last week (January 29th), Newt Gingrich campaigned on a platform of anti-embryonic stem cell research: “Speaking at a Baptist church in Winter Park on Saturday, the former speaker received a standing ovation when he declared that embryonic stem-cell research amounts to ‘the use of science to desensitize society over the killing of babies.’” News flash, Newt: Embryonic Stem Cell research may not be the cutting-edge of stem cell research anyway.
According to Science Debate, “Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy At Risk? Geron Ends Clinical Trial,” the biotechnology company Geron recently cancelled its embryonic stem cell (ESC) clinical trial, the first in the U.S. on human subjects, due apparently to financial reasons. But, if the clinical trial had been showing even a little success, it seems unlikely that Geron would have cancelled its trials. According to Dr. Hans Keirstead, who had successfully conducted similar experiments on rats with human ESC in 2005, "This trial was approved only after rigorous safety testing and consultation of countless experts in the field. Any benefit to the patient, even an incremental one, would be a resounding victory." Further, Geron has announced that it has discontinued all ESC research. This is hugely significant, since Geron has been in this line of research since at least 1998. The clinical trial had been approved shortly after President Obama lifted the ban on ESC research in 2009, and the trial began in October, 2010, with at least four patients.
The good news is that another biotech company, Neuralstem Inc., has had some great success treating ALS with adult stem cells. According to the information from Neuralstem’s website, “Neuralstem is growing regionally specific cells that are already suited to the task prescribed to them once transplanted into the central nervous system. In spinal cord indications, for instance, the company will be using human spinal cord stem cells only." This treatment works better, because, unlike ESC, the adult stem cells are already programmed to become the correct cell type (in this case, nerve cells). Some of the problems with ESC come from the fact that ESCs can become virtually any type of cell in the body, and there has been some difficulty in getting them to grow into the correct tissue needed. You seriously don’t want to grow a foot in your brain (has happened).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)