The Real Story of the Stem Cell Debate

I thought I'd let the real argument play out here before telling y'all what I've learned.

I've learned the left has no f'in clue of the scientific damage that they've done by opposing nanotechnology and biotechnology and nuclear power and the space program (for instance). ALL of these endevours could have positioned the US as leader in 21st century technology and filled a lot of the job gap... They "feel" as if they are in a totally objective and superior moral/intellectual position to ATTEMPT to indict the right for PERCEIVED interference with science. An attempt that in the case of ESC -- didn't quite get traction..

I've also learned that govt intervention in picking winner/losers in the science fields is extremely meddlesome and that if you can't lead towards innovation -- you should stay the heck out of the way.

What a load of crap. The U.S. is number one in innovation. Why do you think our universities and industry draw people from all over the world? I'd also like to see your evidence that "leftisis" have opposed bio- and nanotechnology and the space program. I'll give you nuclear.

You snooze -- you lose.. Those kids in our graduate schools are NOT OURS. How long do you think that leadership is gonna last at that rate? They won't NEED our schools in 10 years. We will LOSE in 10 years.

And you haven't been following the eco-left campaigns against FrankenFoods?? Against genetic engineering of all kinds? Not my job to wake you up here.. Same deal with spreading far-fetched scenarios about self-replicating micro machiines that might derive from nanotech research.. Oh OK -- I'll give you a one clue..

Nanotechnology and Its Dangers

See --- my premise is secure. The left has no f'in idea of the scientific damage they've caused due to emotional opposition to KEY technology and science ventures REQUIRED for this country to compete for jobs and exports.

I'm talking the real left, not the fringes. You going to take credit for any craziness perpetrated by the far right wing? As for "scientific damage", what about making stem cell research harder to do or spreading the meme that "scientists don't know what they're talking about", just because their SCIENTIFIC views on AGW don't jibe with the right's POLITCAL views?
 
Research using embryonic stem cells is not nearly as advanced (or even useful in treatment of disease) as that in other undifferentiated cells. Other undifferentiated cells give better results and are easier to work with.

It's just that simple.

Here is one of the two scientists who has shown in 2007 that embryonic stem cell research was not that important anymore, Shinya Yamanaka, and a link and abstract to his famous pub: Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult hum...[Cell. 2007]

Cell. 2007 Nov 30;131(5):861-72

[Abstract]

Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors.

Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, Narita M, Ichisaka T, Tomoda K, Yamanaka S.

Department of Stem Cell Biology, Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan.

Successful reprogramming of differentiated human somatic cells into a pluripotent state would allow creation of patient- and disease-specific stem cells. We previously reported generation of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, capable of germline transmission, from mouse somatic cells by transduction of four defined transcription factors. Here, we demonstrate the generation of iPS cells from adult human dermal fibroblasts with the same four factors: Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc. Human iPS cells were similar to human embryonic stem (ES) cells in morphology, proliferation, surface antigens, gene expression, epigenetic status of pluripotent cell-specific genes, and telomerase activity. Furthermore, these cells could differentiate into cell types of the three germ layers in vitro and in teratomas. These findings demonstrate that iPS cells can be generated from adult human fibroblasts.
And here is the second of the two scientists who demonstrated the same back in 2007, James Thomson, and a link to his research: Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from h...[Science. 2007]
Science. 2007 Dec 21;318(5858):1917-20

[Abstract]

Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells.

Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K, Antosiewicz-Bourget J, Frane JL, Tian S, Nie J, Jonsdottir GA, Ruotti V, Stewart R, Slukvin II, Thomson JA.

Genome Center of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1580, USA. [email protected]

Somatic cell nuclear transfer allows trans-acting factors present in the mammalian oocyte to reprogram somatic cell nuclei to an undifferentiated state. We show that four factors (OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28) are sufficient to reprogram human somatic cells to pluripotent stem cells that exhibit the essential characteristics of embryonic stem (ES) cells. These induced pluripotent human stem cells have normal karyotypes, express telomerase activity, express cell surface markers and genes that characterize human ES cells, and maintain the developmental potential to differentiate into advanced derivatives of all three primary germ layers. Such induced pluripotent human cell lines should be useful in the production of new disease models and in drug development, as well as for applications in transplantation medicine, once technical limitations (for example, mutation through viral integration) are eliminated.
Definition of pluripotent (since a pluripotent stem cell is the holy grail in this area):

Pluripotent—Ability of a single stem cell to give rise to all of the various cell types that make up the body. Pluripotent cells cannot make so-called "extra-embryonic" tissues such as the amnion, chorion, and other components of the placenta. Scientists demonstrate pluripotency by providing evidence of stable developmental potential, even after prolonged culture, to form derivatives of all three embryonic germ layers from the progeny of a single cell and to generate a teratoma after injection into an immunosuppressed mouse.
Glossary [Stem Cell Information]

Most of the research since has focused on undifferentiated cells other than ESC because they are easier to work with and yield much more results applicable to treatment of disease.

The state of the science has favored research using other undifferentiated cells for some time now. This is not political; it's just science.
 
Oh, and as ESC's are undifferentiated, it wasn't until about 2008 that a protocol for storing them in a manner that would prevent differentiation was developed. If not stored properly, they differentiate and are no longer useful stem cells.
 
So, the money spent on ESC research has moved scientific knowledge forward, even if the hypothesis has not proved their usability is superior. I have no quarrel with science, I do object to those whose posts suggest the science was driven exclusively by the greed of the researchers.

I also don't believe current knowledge and experience are the final chapter; much more study and research needs to be taken to determine the adaptablity of all sources of stem cells in the treatment of a host of disease and injury.

That said, research must be peer reviewed as noted in Tuesday's Spine Journal . I quote from and article in today's San Francisco Chronical, "Safety of spinal fusion protein questioned".

"An unusal study led by a Stanford scientist found that a bone growth protein widely used in spinal fusion surgeries - and repeatedly declared safe by industry-sponsored research - in fact my cause a variety of complications, some permanent or even life threatening". The article "called into question the validity of years of research that was paid for largely by the manufacturer of the protein and the device that delivers it to the spine".

"The new report found that while initial sudies of bone morphogenetic protein showed serous side effects, 13 papers later publshed in peer-reveiwed jounrnals noted no complications. And in all of those papers, at least one author had a financial relationship with Medtronic, Inc. the maker of device which delivers bone growth protein...The median amount of money per paper paid by Medictronic to scientists was $12 million to $16 million, according th the Spine Journal paper. Most of that money would have been paid in consulting fees over a lengthy period of time.".
 
So, the money spent on ESC research has moved scientific knowledge forward, even if the hypothesis has not proved their usability is superior. I have no quarrel with science, I do object to those whose posts suggest the science was driven exclusively by the greed of the researchers.

I also don't believe current knowledge and experience are the final chapter; much more study and research needs to be taken to determine the adaptablity of all sources of stem cells in the treatment of a host of disease and injury.

That said, research must be peer reviewed as noted in Tuesday's Spine Journal . I quote from and article in today's San Francisco Chronical, "Safety of spinal fusion protein questioned".

"An unusal study led by a Stanford scientist found that a bone growth protein widely used in spinal fusion surgeries - and repeatedly declared safe by industry-sponsored research - in fact my cause a variety of complications, some permanent or even life threatening". The article "called into question the validity of years of research that was paid for largely by the manufacturer of the protein and the device that delivers it to the spine".

"The new report found that while initial sudies of bone morphogenetic protein showed serous side effects, 13 papers later publshed in peer-reveiwed jounrnals noted no complications. And in all of those papers, at least one author had a financial relationship with Medtronic, Inc. the maker of device which delivers bone growth protein...The median amount of money per paper paid by Medictronic to scientists was $12 million to $16 million, according th the Spine Journal paper. Most of that money would have been paid in consulting fees over a lengthy period of time.".
There was always money spent on embryonic stem cell research. The science favors research on other undifferentiated cells for treatment of disease and there is probably more grant money available for that because of the science. That has nothing to do with politics

I'm trying to figure out the relevance of your posting an article (with no link) about growth proteins when discussing stem cells. You do know that proteins are not cells, right?
 
So, the money spent on ESC research has moved scientific knowledge forward, even if the hypothesis has not proved their usability is superior. I have no quarrel with science, I do object to those whose posts suggest the science was driven exclusively by the greed of the researchers.

I also don't believe current knowledge and experience are the final chapter; much more study and research needs to be taken to determine the adaptablity of all sources of stem cells in the treatment of a host of disease and injury.

That said, research must be peer reviewed as noted in Tuesday's Spine Journal . I quote from and article in today's San Francisco Chronical, "Safety of spinal fusion protein questioned".

"An unusal study led by a Stanford scientist found that a bone growth protein widely used in spinal fusion surgeries - and repeatedly declared safe by industry-sponsored research - in fact my cause a variety of complications, some permanent or even life threatening". The article "called into question the validity of years of research that was paid for largely by the manufacturer of the protein and the device that delivers it to the spine".

"The new report found that while initial sudies of bone morphogenetic protein showed serous side effects, 13 papers later publshed in peer-reveiwed jounrnals noted no complications. And in all of those papers, at least one author had a financial relationship with Medtronic, Inc. the maker of device which delivers bone growth protein...The median amount of money per paper paid by Medictronic to scientists was $12 million to $16 million, according th the Spine Journal paper. Most of that money would have been paid in consulting fees over a lengthy period of time.".
There was always money spent on embryonic stem cell research. The science favors research on other undifferentiated cells for treatment of disease and there is probably more grant money available for that because of the science. That has nothing to do with politics

I'm trying to figure out the relevance of your posting an article (with no link) about growth proteins when discussing stem cells. You do know that proteins are not cells, right?

The article may be found here:

Spinal fusion bone morphogenetic protein doubted

The why is a bit harder to explain. I suppose the simple explanation is that scientific studies are not easily extrcated from politics, or the influence of human nature, such as self advantage, greed, fame, etc., or even error.

Appeals to authority, as offered in the OP may ultimately be found true and reasonable; or false and based on premises offered as truths, when in actuallity efforts by the author/speaker to benefit from an invalid conclusion.
 
So, the money spent on ESC research has moved scientific knowledge forward, even if the hypothesis has not proved their usability is superior. I have no quarrel with science, I do object to those whose posts suggest the science was driven exclusively by the greed of the researchers.

I also don't believe current knowledge and experience are the final chapter; much more study and research needs to be taken to determine the adaptablity of all sources of stem cells in the treatment of a host of disease and injury.

That said, research must be peer reviewed as noted in Tuesday's Spine Journal . I quote from and article in today's San Francisco Chronical, "Safety of spinal fusion protein questioned".

"An unusal study led by a Stanford scientist found that a bone growth protein widely used in spinal fusion surgeries - and repeatedly declared safe by industry-sponsored research - in fact my cause a variety of complications, some permanent or even life threatening". The article "called into question the validity of years of research that was paid for largely by the manufacturer of the protein and the device that delivers it to the spine".

"The new report found that while initial sudies of bone morphogenetic protein showed serous side effects, 13 papers later publshed in peer-reveiwed jounrnals noted no complications. And in all of those papers, at least one author had a financial relationship with Medtronic, Inc. the maker of device which delivers bone growth protein...The median amount of money per paper paid by Medictronic to scientists was $12 million to $16 million, according th the Spine Journal paper. Most of that money would have been paid in consulting fees over a lengthy period of time.".
There was always money spent on embryonic stem cell research. The science favors research on other undifferentiated cells for treatment of disease and there is probably more grant money available for that because of the science. That has nothing to do with politics

I'm trying to figure out the relevance of your posting an article (with no link) about growth proteins when discussing stem cells. You do know that proteins are not cells, right?

The article may be found here:

Spinal fusion bone morphogenetic protein doubted
Thanks for that. I even googled the title you posted and put it in quotes and did not find it. I appreciate that.

....

The why is a bit harder to explain. I suppose the simple explanation is that scientific studies are not easily extrcated from politics, or the influence of human nature, such as self advantage, greed, fame, etc., or even error.

....
The nice thing about science is that the pure (basic, hard, etc.) sciences have adopted the logic of scientific discovery, a philosophy developed by Karl Popper with clear guidelines for scientific discovery. (I recommend the read, it's interesting stuff; at least to me, it is.)

The reason for the scientific community all adopting this philosophy is because it is a crystal clear methodology to eliminate (or limit as much as we currently know how) subjective influence (those influences you mentioned) into the process of scientific discovery.

So, when the science is properly done, I am not too concerned about those influences. And, those scientists who do not adhere to the logic of scientific discovery will quickly lose their good name in the scientific community, once exposed. Our bread is buttered with our scientific integrity.

....
Appeals to authority, as offered in the OP may ultimately be found true and reasonable; or false and based on premises offered as truths, when in actuallity efforts by the author/speaker to benefit from an invalid conclusion.
Fumento is a journalist who happens to have a specialty in writing about health and science. I see him as nothing but a journalist. He is no authority to me, but I find several of his points valid. And, the science supports most of those points. His conclusions about that are similar to what mine already were. ESC are not as attractive a research topic as other undifferentiated cells with respect to treating disease at this point. That does not mean we stop studying them, but we certainly cannot say with any confidence that they will be "all that" in treatment of disease. The state of the science does not support that. In fact, it supports something else - that other undifferentiated cells are much more useful tools in treating disease.
 
There was always money spent on embryonic stem cell research. The science favors research on other undifferentiated cells for treatment of disease and there is probably more grant money available for that because of the science. That has nothing to do with politics

I'm trying to figure out the relevance of your posting an article (with no link) about growth proteins when discussing stem cells. You do know that proteins are not cells, right?

The article may be found here:

Spinal fusion bone morphogenetic protein doubted
Thanks for that. I even googled the title you posted and put it in quotes and did not find it. I appreciate that.

....

The why is a bit harder to explain. I suppose the simple explanation is that scientific studies are not easily extrcated from politics, or the influence of human nature, such as self advantage, greed, fame, etc., or even error.

....
The nice thing about science is that the pure (basic, hard, etc.) sciences have adopted the logic of scientific discovery, a philosophy developed by Karl Popper with clear guidelines for scientific discovery. (I recommend the read, it's interesting stuff; at least to me, it is.)

The reason for the scientific community all adopting this philosophy is because it is a crystal clear methodology to eliminate (or limit as much as we currently know how) subjective influence (those influences you mentioned) into the process of scientific discovery.

So, when the science is properly done, I am not too concerned about those influences. And, those scientists who do not adhere to the logic of scientific discovery will quickly lose their good name in the scientific community, once exposed. Our bread is buttered with our scientific integrity.

....
Appeals to authority, as offered in the OP may ultimately be found true and reasonable; or false and based on premises offered as truths, when in actuallity efforts by the author/speaker to benefit from an invalid conclusion.
Fumento is a journalist who happens to have a specialty in writing about health and science. I see him as nothing but a journalist. He is no authority to me, but I find several of his points valid. And, the science supports most of those points. His conclusions about that are similar to what mine already were. ESC are not as attractive a research topic as other undifferentiated cells with respect to treating disease at this point. That does not mean we stop studying them, but we certainly cannot say with any confidence that they will be "all that" in treatment of disease. The state of the science does not support that. In fact, it supports something else - that other undifferentiated cells are much more useful tools in treating disease.

The author of the OP offered an Appeal to Authority; I had no idea who Furmento was and in all honesty doubt the credibility of everything PC offers. I simply pointed out that the suggestion by she and others that the research on ESC's was all about getting grant money is bogus, and the research on all aspects of this very new field is on-going. We don't know for sure which source of cells is the most effective or is even effective as a treatment for many many diseases and injuries. History suggests the newest discoveries are but stepping stones to an unknown future.

In essence your posts make sense to me, the arguments by PC and others do not.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top