Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What exactly do you believe is different about an embryonic stem cell and an adult stem cell? I will give you a hint, one is an undifferentiated cell among differentiated cells that is pluripotent and one is an undifferentiated cell that is pluripotent. Why has this gone on for so many pages?
Have you really been sitting around all this time, thinking that whether or not researchers use embryonic or adult cells is just a matter of personal preference? Good grief.
What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]
Well, thanks for the confirming link, appreciate it. Other than that, I never said anything about personal preference. Good Grief!
Are you saying that embryonic and adult stem cells are no different? All the information I've ever seen has claimed that there are definitely differences between the two.
Of course there are differences. The main one is that, unlike what Furthur says, adult stem cells are NOT considered to be "pluripotent". They are, rather, considered to be "multipotent". It's the main reason that they appear to be much easier to control and made to do what the researchers want, rather than going wild and creating teratomas, the way embryonic stem cells have been known to do.
That is true, though we use hematopoietic stem cells because they have the most potential to be pluripotent, IE we can force them to become other cell types easily because they express the most proteins and genes. Other than that, adult stem cells can only become the same type of tissue they were derived from, again why the hemaopeitic stem cells. If it is better to have mulipotent cells, then why do we go for blood cells and force them to become other cells? I do not agree that researchers think it is better to have them at all.
Of course there are differences. The main one is that, unlike what Furthur says, adult stem cells are NOT considered to be "pluripotent". They are, rather, considered to be "multipotent". It's the main reason that they appear to be much easier to control and made to do what the researchers want, rather than going wild and creating teratomas, the way embryonic stem cells have been known to do.
That is true, though we use hematopoietic stem cells because they have the most potential to be pluripotent, IE we can force them to become other cell types easily because they express the most proteins and genes. Other than that, adult stem cells can only become the same type of tissue they were derived from, again why the hemaopeitic stem cells. If it is better to have mulipotent cells, then why do we go for blood cells and force them to become other cells? I do not agree that researchers think it is better to have them at all.
My God, you really know nothing about this topic at all, do you? And this whole claiming one position and then switching to another and trying to pretend it's what you were saying all along thing doesn't fool anyone.
I am still confused as to what (pragmatic) reason we would have to limit research on one line versus the other.
Cell potential is an important issue. As noted, emryonic cells can differentiate into more cell types then adult. Therefore, there is a lot to be learned from them that can help us all.
To act like we have to eliminate embryonic stem cells simply because we haven't seen immediate results or even that they haven't yielded a therapeutic benefit is simplistic thinking.
I am still confused as to what (pragmatic) reason we would have to limit research on one line versus the other.
Cell potential is an important issue. As noted, emryonic cells can differentiate into more cell types then adult. Therefore, there is a lot to be learned from them that can help us all.
To act like we have to eliminate embryonic stem cells simply because we haven't seen immediate results or even that they haven't yielded a therapeutic benefit is simplistic thinking.
Interesting way you have of wording that.
Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 30 years and it had the building block of other stem cell research behind it.
It's not that there there hasn't been "immediate results" (your words), it's that there have been zero results (in medical cures) after over 30 years.
"Simplistic" that.
Good point, Immie.I am still confused as to what (pragmatic) reason we would have to limit research on one line versus the other.
Cell potential is an important issue. As noted, emryonic cells can differentiate into more cell types then adult. Therefore, there is a lot to be learned from them that can help us all.
To act like we have to eliminate embryonic stem cells simply because we haven't seen immediate results or even that they haven't yielded a therapeutic benefit is simplistic thinking.
Interesting way you have of wording that.
Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 30 years and it had the building block of other stem cell research behind it.
It's not that there there hasn't been "immediate results" (your words), it's that there have been zero results (in medical cures) after over 30 years.
"Simplistic" that.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and I do mean Devil.
Does that mean that we should end the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon because there has not been a cure for MD? It has been going on for as long as I can remember and they don't appear to be any closer today than they were the day I was born.
Immie
PS: I know that is not true about MDA. I'm sure they have made many breakthroughs... haven't they?
Interesting way you have of wording that.
Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 30 years and it had the building block of other stem cell research behind it.
It's not that there there hasn't been "immediate results" (your words), it's that there have been zero results (in medical cures) after over 30 years.
"Simplistic" that.
Good point, Immie.Interesting way you have of wording that.
Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 30 years and it had the building block of other stem cell research behind it.
It's not that there there hasn't been "immediate results" (your words), it's that there have been zero results (in medical cures) after over 30 years.
"Simplistic" that.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and I do mean Devil.
Does that mean that we should end the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon because there has not been a cure for MD? It has been going on for as long as I can remember and they don't appear to be any closer today than they were the day I was born.
Immie
PS: I know that is not true about MDA. I'm sure they have made many breakthroughs... haven't they?
Let people donate to the Jerry Lewis MDA all they want. Or to embryonic stem cell research. Or to adult stem cell research. Or to breast cancer research. Or to etc.
No need to have the government decide what is worthy research especially when much of it yields no results. It's not like the congresscritters have some sort of special star-wars like force that makes them better equipped to decide where (mine and yours) charity dollars should go when it comes to medical research.
Interesting way you have of wording that.
Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 30 years and it had the building block of other stem cell research behind it.
That's over stating it a bit. While bench research on stem cells has been going on for a while, bio-research has boomed in the last 15-20 years with the advent of technology. We are basically in the middle of an industrial revolution of research. Though, since few people read scientific journals, they aren't aware of it.
To put any type of research on some sort of time line as if it were a football game and the clock is winding down is just silly.
It's not that there there hasn't been "immediate results" (your words), it's that there have been zero results (in medical cures) after over 30 years.
"Simplistic" that.
That's because you have limited "results" to "medical cures". This is what drives me nuts about people (not necessarily directed at you) who insist scientific research be limited to private funding with some sort of specific end state.
Science is, and always has been, about the search for knowledge (and not the search for money). Scientific work is usually not done with the goal of becoming richer than God. It's done to advance our knowledge in the field. The sum total of that knowledge leads to breakthroughs.
In that instance, we have a ton to learn about both adult and fetal stem cells. This isn't limited to cures. We can use them to learn about pathology and physiology. The minor breakthroughs of today will lead to larger breakthroughs tomorrow. If you doubt that, pick up a scientific paper and flip to the references page and see how experiments and studies done 30 years ago influenced work done today.
Again, I was just reading a paper about nutrition in critically care patients (a relatively new concept - how you can adjust calories on patients on a ventilator and change outcomes) and there are references from 1980 in it.
So again, outside of the 600 lbs gorilla (which is people's moral aversion to embyronic stem cells), what is the pragmatic reason to limit research on both lines?
If this just boils down to how we all feel about the life issue, we can agree to disagree and move on.
I have no problem with scientific research.
I am unsure why some think that congress has the intelligence to determine what scientific research should be funded with my and your dollars. That is the gorilla in the room.
I am still confused as to what (pragmatic) reason we would have to limit research on one line versus the other.
Cell potential is an important issue. As noted, emryonic cells can differentiate into more cell types then adult. Therefore, there is a lot to be learned from them that can help us all.
To act like we have to eliminate embryonic stem cells simply because we haven't seen immediate results or even that they haven't yielded a therapeutic benefit is simplistic thinking.
Interesting way you have of wording that.
Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 30 years and it had the building block of other stem cell research behind it.
It's not that there there hasn't been "immediate results" (your words), it's that there have been zero results (in medical cures) after over 30 years.
"Simplistic" that.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and I do mean Devil.
Does that mean that we should end the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon because there has not been a cure for MD? It has been going on for as long as I can remember and they don't appear to be any closer today than they were the day I was born.
Immie
PS: I know that is not true about MDA. I'm sure they have made many breakthroughs... haven't they?
I wasn't aware that the Jerry Lewis Telethon (which, by the way, doesn't have Jerry Lewis any more) received federal funding, which is actually the crux of the problem here. I don't believe anyone has suggested that private industry should be made to stop funding ESCR if it desires to do so. It's the taxpayer money and where it should be spent that's in question.
By the way, the MDA does a lot of things besides fund research into muscular dystrophy and other nerve disorders. They have clinics that provide diagnosis and treatment, and they offer community services such as a summer camp for kids with muscular dystrophy. And while there is not a cure yet for MD, I believe varying progress has been made in developing treatments for different nerve and spinal disorders.
I have no problem with scientific research.
I am unsure why some think that congress has the intelligence to determine what scientific research should be funded with my and your dollars. That is the gorilla in the room.
"Congress" doesnt'. The NIH and other institutions does. In reality, scientists submit proposals for grants and they are either approved or dissaproved.
It's the same process for virtually any other government bid or funding. You could make the same statement about R&D in the defense industry. Why people decide to get wrapped around the axle about research grants is beyond me.
To insist that the endstate or goal is always a tangible and profitable quantity is also silly.
Fleming had no intentions of discovering penicillin. It was complete happenstance. And yet, that let to one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century and saved countless lives in World War II and beyond.
I have no problem with scientific research.
I am unsure why some think that congress has the intelligence to determine what scientific research should be funded with my and your dollars. That is the gorilla in the room.
"Congress" doesnt'. The NIH and other institutions does. In reality, scientists submit proposals for grants and they are either approved or dissaproved.
It's the same process for virtually any other government bid or funding. You could make the same statement about R&D in the defense industry. Why people decide to get wrapped around the axle about research grants is beyond me.
To insist that the endstate or goal is always a tangible and profitable quantity is also silly.
Fleming had no intentions of discovering penicillin. It was complete happenstance. And yet, that let to one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century and saved countless lives in World War II and beyond.
I repeat,
I am unsure why some think that congress has the intelligence to determine what scientific research should be funded with my and your dollars. Feel free to strike the word "congress" and put in any word, agency or government bureaucracy you want as a substitute. It's still the same thing.
Scientific significance (i.e., Does the project address an important problem? Are the aims of the project being achieved? If so, is scientific knowledge being advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?).
Scientific approach (i.e., Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Where problem areas arose were reasonable alternative tactics employed?).
Innovation (i.e., Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or methods? Does the project employ original innovative aims? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methods?).
Scientific and intellectual environment (i.e., In the context of this project, is the investigator taking advantage of the special features of the NIH intramural scientific environment or employing useful collaborative arrangements?).
Investigator training (i.e., Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this project? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and, where appropriate, other researchers?).
Scientific productivity (i.e., Considering the investigator’s other responsibilities [e.g., service, or administrative], how does the Board of Scientific Counselors rate his/her overall research productivity? [e.g., Outstanding, and everything possible should be done to increase support; outstanding, but current level of support is appropriate; excellent, and continue support at current level; good, but needs some improvement to warrant current level of support; too low to warrant current level of support; so inadequate that the project should be phased out and the scientist reassigned to another activity.]).
Interesting way you have of wording that.
Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 30 years and it had the building block of other stem cell research behind it.
It's not that there there hasn't been "immediate results" (your words), it's that there have been zero results (in medical cures) after over 30 years.
"Simplistic" that.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and I do mean Devil.
Does that mean that we should end the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon because there has not been a cure for MD? It has been going on for as long as I can remember and they don't appear to be any closer today than they were the day I was born.
Immie
PS: I know that is not true about MDA. I'm sure they have made many breakthroughs... haven't they?
I wasn't aware that the Jerry Lewis Telethon (which, by the way, doesn't have Jerry Lewis any more) received federal funding, which is actually the crux of the problem here. I don't believe anyone has suggested that private industry should be made to stop funding ESCR if it desires to do so. It's the taxpayer money and where it should be spent that's in question.
By the way, the MDA does a lot of things besides fund research into muscular dystrophy and other nerve disorders. They have clinics that provide diagnosis and treatment, and they offer community services such as a summer camp for kids with muscular dystrophy. And while there is not a cure yet for MD, I believe varying progress has been made in developing treatments for different nerve and spinal disorders.
"Congress" doesnt'. The NIH and other institutions does. In reality, scientists submit proposals for grants and they are either approved or dissaproved.
It's the same process for virtually any other government bid or funding. You could make the same statement about R&D in the defense industry. Why people decide to get wrapped around the axle about research grants is beyond me.
To insist that the endstate or goal is always a tangible and profitable quantity is also silly.
Fleming had no intentions of discovering penicillin. It was complete happenstance. And yet, that let to one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century and saved countless lives in World War II and beyond.
I repeat,
I am unsure why some think that congress has the intelligence to determine what scientific research should be funded with my and your dollars. Feel free to strike the word "congress" and put in any word, agency or government bureaucracy you want as a substitute. It's still the same thing.
And the average taxpayer does? A significant proportion of people in this country don't even believe in evolution.
So it becomes the same "waste of taxpayers" money arguement that could apply to everything.
As it stands, the current system with the NIH handling the grants (which are overseen by scientists) makes sense.
I also fail to see how this is purely limited to stem cells.
You missed my point that it's not the governments responsibility/decision to determine what is worthy research and what is not. I said nothing about limiting research, don't try to pretend that I did.I don't know what you are proposing other than limiting research only to things that would promise to be a "eureka moment".
It makes little sense.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and I do mean Devil.
Does that mean that we should end the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon because there has not been a cure for MD? It has been going on for as long as I can remember and they don't appear to be any closer today than they were the day I was born.
Immie
PS: I know that is not true about MDA. I'm sure they have made many breakthroughs... haven't they?
I wasn't aware that the Jerry Lewis Telethon (which, by the way, doesn't have Jerry Lewis any more) received federal funding, which is actually the crux of the problem here. I don't believe anyone has suggested that private industry should be made to stop funding ESCR if it desires to do so. It's the taxpayer money and where it should be spent that's in question.
By the way, the MDA does a lot of things besides fund research into muscular dystrophy and other nerve disorders. They have clinics that provide diagnosis and treatment, and they offer community services such as a summer camp for kids with muscular dystrophy. And while there is not a cure yet for MD, I believe varying progress has been made in developing treatments for different nerve and spinal disorders.
Good points and I was not insinuating that MDA should be shut down. Remember, I was playing Devil's Advocate.
It did seem to me until the latest part of the thread, that the point was to stop ALL ESCR.
Immie
I repeat,
I am unsure why some think that congress has the intelligence to determine what scientific research should be funded with my and your dollars. Feel free to strike the word "congress" and put in any word, agency or government bureaucracy you want as a substitute. It's still the same thing.
And the average taxpayer does? A significant proportion of people in this country don't even believe in evolution.
So it becomes the same "waste of taxpayers" money arguement that could apply to everything.
As it stands, the current system with the NIH handling the grants (which are overseen by scientists) makes sense.
I also fail to see how this is purely limited to stem cells.
And the average non-taxpayer makes the argument no different, regardless of their belief in evolution, science or anything else. Oddly enough, belief in those things hasn't changed the results from stem cell research.
You missed my point that it's not the governments responsibility/decision to determine what is worthy research and what is not. I said nothing about limiting research, don't try to pretend that I did.I don't know what you are proposing other than limiting research only to things that would promise to be a "eureka moment".
It makes little sense.
