AdultStemCell.com

Wayne Channon asked:


According to Wikipedia, Stem cells are cells common to all multi-cellular organisms that hold the ability to renew themselves through cell division and can differentiate into a wide range of specialised cell types.

The three categories of stem cells are considered to be:

Fisrt, embryonic stem cells, that are derived from blastocysts, then adult stem cells, which are found in adult tissues and finally, cord blood stem cells, which are found in the umbilical cord blood. In a developing embryo, stem cells are able to differentiate into all of the specialised embryonic tissues. In adult organisms, stem cells and progenitor cells act as a repair system for the body, replenishing specialised cells. Research in the human stem cell field is growing year after year as scientists find more and more use for stem cells.
Stem cells, which are the precursor cells that give rise to the 210 different kinds of tissue in the human body, are believed to have the potential to treat diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, and cancer.

Human embryonic stem cell research may indeed have the potential to benefit many people who suffer from serious debilitating conditions. Because embryonic stem cells can develop into many different types of tissues, researchers hope these cells can be coaxed into replacing tissues whose function has been lost or compromised as a result of injury or disease.

On the other hand, the use of embryonic stem cells in research is raising a big debate. As scientists start speaking about cloning to produce human embryonic stem cells for use of medical therapies, some people seem to have a moral issue with the practice of cloning. The stem cell/cloning controversy raises, once again, the fundamental issue of personhood and the ensuing considerations of how human persons should be treated.

It would be interesting to see how people’s way of thinking will evolve in the future and to see whether or not, stem cells will be used to treat some diseases.

Mike Selvon asked:


Several studies have indicated that the human body may have regenerative properties if given the right circumstances. For example, a child under ten years old may be able to regrow a lost fingertip if the wounds aren’t stitched up to prevent the regrowth.

If the membrane surrounding one’s rib is left intact, a damaged rib can regenerate. Scientists also speculate that livers and kidneys have some regenerative abilities as well. To further study this realm of science, we must rely on stem cell research. However, there is much stem cell controversy blocking the path to enlightenment.

In an embryo that is just three days old, stem cells are found that will later transform into the heart, lungs, skin, tissues, bone marrow, muscle and brain. Advocates of stem cell research believe that there may be a way to generate replacement cells for parts of the body lost through injury, disease or aging. What makes stemcells different than blood, muscle or nerve cells is their innate ability to replicate for months in a laboratory setting. Scientists are hopeful about the potential for long term rejuvenation using these self-renewing human stem cells.

In addition to embryonic stem cell research, there is also adult stem cell research being done. Undifferentiated adult stem cells are found amid similar cells and they exist to repair damaged tissue. Scientists are examining where adult stem cells are naturally found in the body, as well as which factors control the differentiation and proliferation of these stem cells. Stem cells can be harvested easily from the adult human body and this branch of research does not involve the destruction of a human embryo, so there is much less stem cell controversy surrounding adult cells.

While stem cell research has been full of controversy in America, other nations, notably Iran, have nothing against stem cell research at all. “Policies that may be classified as liberal in the American political system seem to be common sense to Iranian politicians,” explains Hassan Ashktorab of the Howard University Cancer Center in Washington, DC. While George W. Bush banned research on fetal stem cells, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei embraced the modern science. While human cloning is still condemned in Iranian culture, they believe it is their duty to do their best to prevent illness and protect human life.

Lawrence Ebert asked:


Stem cells, undifferentiated cells which have the ability to turn into specific cell types, hold promise to beneficially impact health problems such as diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, stroke, heart attack and spinal cord injury. Before his death, Christopher Reeve was a strong advocate of research in stem cells.

There has been controversy about certain types of stem cells. There are three sources of stem cells, of which one type, cells derived from early stage human embryos, has caused political division, because the creation of an embryonic stem cell “line” requires the destruction of a human embryo. Because of this, President Bush in 2001, stated his intention to “allow federal funds to be used for research on existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made,” but no federal funds would be available for new stem cell lines. This choice has been debated. The television show “60 Minutes” reviewed the issue twice in the month of February 2006, on February 12 and on February 26.

In the state of New Jersey, the debate has been roughly on partisan lines, with Democrats favoring funding of stem reseach, and (some) Republicans opposed. However, there is a separate division as to “what kind” of stem cell research. Hedging its bets, New Jersey has proposed spending $150 million on cutting-edge research on stem cells, including the controversial embryonic stem cells, $50 million on research on less controversial research focused on stem cells from cord blood, placentas and other human tissue, and $50 million on a center directed to commercial applications and clinical trials of adult stem cells.

The area of commercial applications has created unanticipated problems in the brave new world of large-scale state-funding of research. A legal opinion in 2005 prepared for California State Treasurer Angelides suggested that tax-exempt bonds could not be used to fund research wherein the state would share in money generated by the research (specifically sharing in payments by people who used patents generated by the state-funded research). A meeting of stem cell people in March 2006 revealed a new problem. The holders of patents which already exist in the area want future researchers (such as those in California) to pay them for doing research utilizing their patents. Ironically, the demand was made by one state (Wisconsin’s WARF) against another state (California’s CIRM). With the announcement that South Korea will proceed with patent applications of the disgraced researcher Woo Suk Hwang, one realizes that there are likely to be many patent holders in the field, all seeking to cash in on the large amounts of money being made available by states such as California, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, and Illinois. An important message to appreciate is that money from state-funding of stem cell research intended to create new horizons in medical treatment may be directed to paying off holders of already-created rights.

Some of the problems may be resolved. A recent decision by the Supreme Court (Merck v. Integra) defines a large safe harbor for those conducting research needed to obtain federal regulatory approval (e.g., FDA approval). This research exemption may moderate the impact of claims such as those by Wisconsin against California. However, expectations of tangible results on a short time scale may be unrealistic. One may question whether state funding will produce any FDA approved embryonic stem cell therapy in ten years. Patents issued in the next few years may be “too soon” in time because commercialization of embryonic stem cell work is a long way off. This is an exciting time in a promising area, but with the unknowns one must recognize that there will be bumps in the road.

Don Margolis asked:


Due to Adult Stem Cell research, doctors are now being able to increasingly treat diseases that were previously untreatable. Pulmonary Hypertension is the latest disease to be added to this growing list.

Earlier this year, Karl Wagner, 46, of Macon, Georgia was believed to be the first person in the world to receive Adult Stem Cell therapy for pulmonary hypertension.

Karl had been suffering since being diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension. He was taking medication, but despite the medication, he was still having violent chest pains, heart palpitations, and fatigue. His constant shortness of breath kept him on oxygen all the time. He couldn’t play with his daughters. The doctors at Mayo Clinic gave Karl about 3 more years to live.

Luckily, Karl came across a doctor who predicted that Adult Stem Cells would be beneficial to pulmonary hypertension. Karl decided to try it as he didn’t have anything to lose.

In February, 2008, Karl had a small amount of blood drawn from his arm. The stem cells in the blood were separated and then cultured and multiplied. One week later, Karl had the Adult Stem Cells implanted.

9 months later, Karl has made a 180 degree turn for the better. Before the stem cell treatment, Karl’s pulmonary artery mean pressure was 41mmHg (severe pulmonary hypertension) Now, his pressure is at 24 mmHg which is considered normal.

Karl’s quality of life has changed as well. Karl takes his daughters to school every morning and then goes to work all day. He is off almost all of my medications and says he feels 10 times better than he did before. He says he feels great.

The doctor who treated Karl said that the Adult Stem Cells created new blood vessels which replaced the damaged blood vessels in his lungs. Since treating Karl, the doctor has treated more patients with pulmonary hypertension with similar results.

Joseph C. asked:


Therapies using stem cells have at least forty years since the first bone marrow transplant was performed in 1969 by Edward Donnall Thomas, Nobel Prize for medicine in 1990, based on a research he carried out since the fifties. But we now know that bone marrow transplants are in fact hematopoietic stem cell grafts. 4239 transplants were performed in France, just in 2007.

The idea of using umbilical cord blood stem cells is old, an article published in one of the world’s leading general medical journals, “The Lancet”, was considering this possibility since 1939 and the first attempt to treat a patient suffering from cancer by transfusion dates from 1963. But only in 1988 the team of Professor Eliane Gluckman at Saint-Louis hospital could establish the protocol followed now, in operating the first successful transplant to treat a child suffering from Franconi disease. Therapies derived from cord blood, either to treat bone marrow diseases or reconstitute the dermis, require the involvement of the state which must act as a driving force, otherwise its liability could be one day potentially involved due to the lack of information provided.

Existing Therapies

The first successful therapeutic efforts based on umbilical cord blood were focused on blood diseases. In a second time, advances in knowledge of the different types of stem cells and their function will undoubtedly allow soon, the development of new therapies with the ability to repair the dermis of irradiated people and those with big burns.

Current Therapies Related to Blood Diseases

Hematopoietic stem cells from cord blood can favorably replace bone marrow cells for several reasons. Firstly, the greater immaturity of cord blood stem cells provides a more effective transplant. On the other hand, the chances to find a sample of cord blood compatible with a patient which has no parental relationship with the donor, are significantly higher than those of finding a bone marrow donor for an allogenic transplant.

The statistics given by Professor Gregory Katz-Benichou for the United States show that a third of patients waiting for bone marrow transplantation, have to find a donor outside their families and less than a third of them (9% of total patients) found a compatible donor. Conversely, all the investigations made in order to establish the number of cord blood transplants available worldwide were successful. Thus all patients undergoing a cord blood transplant are finding compatible grafts.

Over 20 000 people have been transplanted since 1988 and it is not surprising that cord blood transplants are growing each year at the expense of bone marrow. In 2007, cord blood transplants accounted for 27% of allogenic transplants performed in France.

Sebastian Blackstone asked:


This election season, Catholic issues have begun to take center stage. With Gov. Sarah Palin’s strong stance on life, Nancy Pelosi’s quotation of the doctors of the Church, Joe Biden’s “private conviction” on abortion, and the Catholic bishops unequivocal public statements, things are just heating up. It is important to reflect on where candidates stand on the issues important to Catholics.

There’s a great comparison of the candidates on the five non-negotiable issues for Catholics at ecatholichub.net/si/vote-2008/compare-candidates. They examine the candidates positions on abortion, euthanasia, embyronic stem-cell research, human cloning and homosexual “marriage.”

First of all: abortion. Barack Obama has affirmed time and again his support for abortion and even infanticide, if his record in the Illinois State Senate is considered. Mr. Obama has stated that he does not considered unborn infants to be persons “entitled to the kinds of protections” found in the Constitution. The National Association the Repeal Abortion Laws has stated they look forward to working with a “pro-choice Obama White House.”

John McCain, on the other hand has taken a pro-life stance on the abortion issue. In the 2000 primary campaign for president, he advocated changing the platform of the Republican party to insist on exceptions from an abortion ban for cases of rape and incest-which disagrees with Catholic teaching. But Mr. McCain has stated that Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned and famously, that life begins “at the moment of conception.” John McCain has staked out for himself the pro-life real estate in America for the 2008 election, while Mr. Obama has done the opposite.

Second, euthanasia. Barack Obama stated that he regretted his vote to allow the family of Terri Schiavo to take their case to the federal courts to prevent her imminent death. He also stated that he thinks the state Oregon “did a service for the country” by passing a pro-assisted suicide referendum. Mr. Obama’s position directly opposes the Catholic teaching that euthanasia or “mercy-killing” is wrong in all cases. Mr. McCain also expressed regret about the way the Senate handled the Terri Schiavo case. However, he has yet to stake out a firm position on this issue.

Third, embryonic stem cell research. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain voted “yes” on Senate Bill 5, which provided federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush vetoed this bill. The Catholic Church has repeatedly issued teachings against embryonic stem cell research because it holds that human life begins at conception.

Fourth, human cloning. Barack Obama co-sponsored a Senate Bill 1520 that would allow for human cloning of embryos, but would not allow the embryos to be maintained alive for more than 14 days. But John McCain has stated again and again that he is “strongly opposed” to human cloning. McCain’s view lines up with Church teaching on this issue.

Finally, homosexual “marriage.” Barack Obama voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment and has stated that he would oppose any efforts banning gay marriage. John McCain stated his support for marriage between one man and one woman, yet he is open to allowing gay couples to enter into some type of civil unions or partnerships. The Catholic bishops in the United States have made many public statements that marriage between a man and a woman is the fundamental building block of society and ought not to be re-defined by political bodies.

After briefly noting each of these five important Catholic issues, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain shines as a “Catholic” candidate. However, Obama’s consistent opposition to Church teaching on every one of these issues make him less worthy of the Catholic vote. But John McCain will stand with Catholics in opposing abortion, euthanasia, human cloning and gay marriage. John McCain is the best choice of the two for American Catholics voting in 2008.