AdultStemCell.com

Samantha Rangen asked:


The National Institutes of Health has a whole subdomain dedicated to stem cells and stem cell research. It is well worth reading up on exactly what are stem cells and other frequently asked questions. The site is set up to be understood by the lay person, but true to current scientific knowledge. The medical possibilities are many, and the scientific interest is great.

Your body maintains a certain balance at all times. One of the many balances is in your bone marrow. A stock of stem cells in your bone marrow, called hematopoietic stem cells, receives biochemical signals from your body about what blood cells are needed at any given time. A cut in your finger is fighting off a bacterial infection? Your body signals your bone marrow to produce more granulocytic cells such as neutrophils. Fighting off a virus? Your body sends in the “go” to make more lymphocytes. The total life cycle of most blood cells is on the order of weeks, so you must continuously make more.

This balance is amazingly beautiful, “natural”, and outstandingly important to your health. One of the most important aspects of your immune system is your blood. The balance between different blood cells gives your body the edge it needs to stay healthy.

In normal healthy individuals, the amount of stem cells circulating in the peripheral blood is very, very small.

Is more of a good thing better?

There are currently on the market products called “stem cell enhancers” that can show with laboratory results that they will increase your circulating stem cells. The results are indeed published that these chemicals (by the time they are extracted from the original natural source, they really are just chemicals) increase the amount of stem cells circulating in your blood stream.

The question remains whether it’s a good thing to have this happen.

During diagnosis of many illnesses of the blood, one of the things that a doctor looks at is how many of what kind of blood cell is circulating in the peripheral blood, and how many of what kind are in the bone marrow. Imbalances beyond certain norms are considered warning signs at least, diagnostic markers for illness at most.

Current scientific research is inconclusive about exactly what adult stem cells do when released into the peripheral blood stream. There is great interest in whether these cells can be somehow drawn to areas of the body that are in need of cellular regeneration, such as cardiac disease, diabetes, and muscles. There is still not enough evidence for anyone to be able to say that circulating stem cells can migrate to where you would like them, or even where you may need them. There are cases for such a view, as well as cases against. The cold hard fact is that there is just not enough data at this time to draw conclusions.

On the other side of the inconclusive coin, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that stem cells can contribute to tumor growth in certain cases. This alone should tell you to speak with a well trained health care professional before taking “stem cell enhancer” products.

To sum, yes, the products mentioned will indeed cause your bone marrow to spit out stem cells into your peripheral blood system. It remains medically and scientifically unclear as to whether this is a good thing for your body at all.

Sources:

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/

PubMed Abstract of ‘Bone marrow-derived cells: roles in solid tumor. Minireview.’

Xiong-Zhi W, Dan C, Guang-Ru X. Bone marrow-derived cells: roles in solid tumor. Neoplasma. 2007;54(1):1-6.

Role of hematopoietic lineage cells as accessory components in blood vessel formation

Takakura, N. Role of hematopoietic lineage cells as accessory components in blood vessel formation. Cancer Sci. 2006 Jul;97(7):568-74.

Stem Cells and Neurogenesis in Tumors

Varner J, Zänker KS, Entschladen F (eds): Neuronal Activity in Tumor Tissue. Prog Exp Tumor Res. Basel, Karger, 2007, vol 39, pp 122-129

Andy Kahn asked:


Aging has been one of the bitter facts of life. It leaves none however mighty, healthy or wealthy. In many societies and in various ages people have always been looking for ways to prevent aging and regain the qualities of youth. In modern age anti aging could become a reality.

Aging occurs due to accumulated damages to the body cells and tissues. If this can be stopped and reversed one can prevent aging and regain youthfulness. There are several modern techniques which aid in rejuvenation and anti aging. Hormone Replacement Therapy is one such technique. There are several hormones whose levels decrease with age. The main seven hormones are Human Growth Hormone (HGH), sexual hormones like testosterone or estrogen/progesterone, erithropoietin EPO, Insulin, Dehydroepiandrosterone, Melatonin, Thyroid and Pregnenolone. If these hormone levels are restored then body can achieve qualities of youth by repairing and rejuvenations itself. Millions have benefited by this Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).

The emerging Stem Cell Research can produce several breakthroughs in rejuvenation and anti aging. Stem Cell therapy involves implantation of stem cells into an existing tissue structure.

There are cosmetic changes which can give the appearance of youth. These include removing extra fat by liposuction, tummy tuck etc. Botulinum or Botox injection is becoming very popular these days. Botulinum prevents the spasm and contraction of muscles thereby removing wrinkles. A Botox injection typically has the effect for only around 6 months.

Weight training is another popular way to prevent aging. Weight training like lifting of weights to build up body mass helps to prevent aging. Muscle cells burn far more calories than fact cells. This boosts energy metabolism. A healthy and peak energy metabolism is one of the basic requirements of youthfulness.

ANTI AGING WITH YOGA

Antony Wilton asked:


Of the many women who wish to alter the shape or size of their breasts, a lot will find the un natural shape of silicone or saline implants unattractive. Thankfully, it appears that breast enhancement research scientists have found a way in which women can in fact grow their own new breast tissue.

This new breast enhancement research indicates that, perhaps within 10 years, tissue grown from ones own stem cells may provide what could be considered as a viable alternative to surgery for breast enhancement.

In a complicated procedure discovered by Japanese researchers, a system was devised to develop stem cells into tissue similar to the fat tissue in breasts, by creating similar conditions to those that set off this process naturally in the body. Researchers then injected the fat tissue into mice, and noticed that after three to four weeks, tissue which was implanted had retained both its shape and size.
This caused the scientists to consider that the same process may be utilised for breast enhancement in women.

This new technique raises the possibility of providing breast enhancement clients with more natural looking breasts containing both smooth and soft attributes. The new tissue will become an integral portion of the breast, rather than what can be described as a foreign mass when comparing it to silicone or saline implants. This is because the stem cells will enable the new fat tissue to form a blood supply of its own.

Results have been heralded as great news for women wishing to have more shapely breasts without the sometimes un-natural look or and feel of implants.
What is also of importance, is that stem cell driven breast enhancement poses no risk of leakage, or other problems associated silicone. The new procedure can also be used in reconstruction of breasts following cancer surgery

Medical practitioners have welcomed these results with enthusiasm, but it will be many years before its effectiveness or side effects will be determined.

R. Sebastian Gibson asked:


Whether you are employed as a scientist or as a company do research anywhere in California, including cities where biotechnology and other medical science is being studied or where research takes place, especially the areas around cities such as San Diego, Irvine, Orange County, Los Angeles, La Jolla, Riverside, Fullerton, San Francisco, Santa Barbara and other cities where there are universities or large research projects taking place in the U.S. and throughout the world, you know that patent laws and patent licensing is acting as a barrier to medical and biotechnology research and preventing advances in science.

It doesn’t take a California patent attorney or CA patent lawyer to say how the world’s patent system is today acting as a barrier to medical and biotechnology research that could solve many of today’s worst diseases and preventing breakthrough treatments, medicines and even new seeds for better crops.

A new report has come out after a seven year study and confirmed what most patent licensing lawyers, medical researchers and biotechnologists have known for years. The patent system in force worldwide is broken and preventing breakthroughs in science.

Without a means for sharing information, blocking patents are causing delays in developing advances in cancer medicine treatments and in the development of new food crops.

The report performed by a Canada based partnership cited as examples of medical advances being delayed as those of HIV/Aids drugs and cancer screening tests.

Of concern to scientists is an increasingly bare medicine chest of new life-saving medicines that are critical not just to the developing world but to the industrialized nations as well to address disease. New food crops are also lagging behind that could help address hunger.

And while stem cell researchers apparently patent the most, they collaborate least according to the report.

What happens is that “blocking patents” act as barriers to research and advances in biotechnology that could advance cancer treatment, new medicines and new crops.

When biotech firms race to file a “fortress” of patents around newly discovered genes, research by their competitors is effectively blocked.

Another example given by scientists is work on genes that cause breast cancer in European countries that has been held up by patents held on specific genes by one biotech company in the U.S. With patients in European countries unable to meet the cost of certain cancer screening tests, they have been effectively denied access to such tests.

A recommendation of the report is that companies should be allowed to form “patent pools” where they could cross-license their patented technologies without losing royalties from their patents. It is also recommended that governments develop other public and private partnerships to conduct joint research.

The criticism of the current patenting system is that it acts more as a barrier than as an incentive to research and the development of medical or other biotechnological breakthroughs.

When a patent office grants dangerously broad patents, entirely new areas of research, such as in the field of nanotechnology, can be cut off.

So long as intellectual property and patent laws act as a barrier from others utilizing and expanding upon one scientist’s research, the laws will prevent scientists from making advances that can benefit mankind. This lack of sharing is preventing biotechnology from becoming the field that it once promised.

Lawrence Ebert asked:


An article by Jennifer Washburn in the April 12, 2006 issue of the Los Angeles Times entitled “The legal lock on stem cells;
Two patents that cover key research areas are setting back science,” discusses patent royalty issues surrounding California’s Proposition 71/CIRM previously discussed in this ezine (“Future Bumps In The Road For State-Funding Of Stem Cell Research,” http://ezinearticles.com/?id=171034.) However, unlike the theme in the ezine, which suggested that patent royalty issues were bumps in the road which could be worked out, the Washburn article suggested that stem cell patents were themselves problematic.

Washburn wrote: “The foundation’s [WARF's] patents are based on the work of James Thompson, a University of Wisconsin professor who was the first scientist to isolate embryonic stem cells, in 1998. But the patents are so broad — unreasonably broad — that they cover all human embryonic stem cell lines in the U.S., not just the specific lines developed by Thompson.”

Obliquely, Washburn suggests that California’s CIRM should challenge the validity of WARF’s patents: “The Foundation
for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, based in Santa Monica, has urged California’s stem cell agency to challenge the Wisconsin patents.”

The basic WARF patent is US 5,843,780 (issued 1 Dec 1998 to James A. Thomson, based on application 591246 filed 18 Jan 1996; the application was a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/376,327 filed Jan. 20, 1995. This invention was made with United States government support awarded by NIH NCRR Grant No. RR00167. Thus, if California’s CIRM were to challenge the ’780 patent, one would have state taxpayer money of California used to challenge a patent held by a Wisconsin agency (WARF), based on research paid by for by the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH). It is doubtful that state taxpayers in California or in Wisconsin, or federal taxpayers, would find this a useful expenditutre of money.

The previous ezine article stated: 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. It may well happen that there are valid patent rights in the stem cell area, and states working in the area must negotiate with the holders of those rights. Separately, the Hatch-Waxman Act created in 35 USC 271(e)(1) a safe harbor for research used to furnish information to federal agencies (such as the FDA). The Supreme Court gave this safe harbor great breadth in the case Merck v. Integra.

Separately, it is ironic for Washburn to complain that WARF is asserting its patent rights while, at the same time, CIRM will be seeking to obtain patent rights to enforce against others. Although the patent royalty distribution under Proposition 71 is muddied by federal tax issues associated with the planned use of tax exempt bonds, California voters were told that there would be income from patent royalties.

As a minor aside to the Washburn article, the two patents discussed therein, U.S. 5,843,780 and 6,200,806, were respectively a continuation-in-part and a divisional; because neither was a continuation, the remark about the applicant can file a “continuation” with another until it gets approved was inappropriate to these facts. The USPTO is currently studying changes to the “continuation” process, but even the changes, as currently proposed, would not have impacted these two applications. Discussions about the effect of repeated continuations on patent grant rate have been discussed in 4 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 186 (available at http://jip.kentlaw.edu); ironically, misunderstanding of the patent grant rate underlies some of the arguments about the lack of patent quality relied upon in the Washburn article.

Robin Calamaio asked:


New frontiers are opened with new technologies. Sometimes, these advances create ethical challenges never contemplated previously. But, as an added twist, sometimes the research itself creates the challenge – before any new development has occurred! One example of this – Embryonic Stem Cell Research. As of this writing, the stem cells required for this research requires the life of the embryo. Someday, if cures are developed, then a full scale cultivation, and harvest, of embryos will begin – with no end in sight. So, what do Naturalists think of this? What about Biblical Theists? And where do Humanists stand?

The Naturalistic View. The Naturalist is for the life of an embryo over any present, malady-ridden human. Beneficial mutations arise randomly, and the new life of any species has always been the engine that drives evolution. But even more importantly, in light of our impending doom [our sun is dying], any one of these new lives may possess the needed genius to deliver us from our coming fate. As it now stands, a relatively few number of embryos have been exterminated. But even this loss is totally unacceptable to the Naturalist, as our next Einstein may now be strewn in some lab somewhere. And if this work discovers cures, embryos will be grown and harvested. So, here is the question. What is it called when a species consumes its own? You already know the answer. Therapies coming from embryonic stem cell harvesting will be a sophisticated form of cannibalism.

I hear the objections even now. “Are you insane? Cannibalism? Cannibalism is when one eats the flesh of their own kind! Nobody is eating an embryo! They will enter sick bodies by injection, implant, pills – or some way other than eating. And besides that, eating is for nutrition – and the embryos will be used for medicinal purposes! These embryos will be used to heal people of all kinds of horrific diseases. Do you want these suffering people to perish? And what if it is your Mom or your Dad, or child – or you – that can be cured? Your tone will change real quick. And what if ….” I know embryonic stem cell advocates may have more objections, but let’s take a moment to look at these.

Embryonic stem cell therapies will be the consumption of one genetically complete (and unique) human life form – by another genetically complete (and unique) human life form. Any doctor, biologist, or researcher who disputes this physical reality has abandoned science for some type of metaphysical speculation. An embryo is human flesh. It is nothing else and it cannot become anything else. It’s just very small and very young – and not yet able to defend itself.

As far as the “eating” of an embryo, from an embryo’s viewpoint, whether injected or chewed up – this is a distinction without a difference. The embryo’s life ends – with a member of its own species consuming its stem cells. This is at least “a sophisticated form of cannibalism.” But, the more I think about it, this is just plain old cannibalism with a high tech twist.

Concerning “nutrition versus medicine,” our body often uses food to heal and repair itself. And if this cannibalism could cure my Mom or Dad, or child (or me), what does that have to do with anything? Does personal need supplant fact? It might for the Humanist, but never for the Naturalist or Biblical Theist. An Evolutionist (Naturalist) would show little concern if we started consuming the stem cells of cows or pigs … but a species wanting to consume its own preborn? Even the desire to do such a thing sounds alarms in true Naturalists. Surely the desire, and practice, of the cannibalization of one’s preborn population should be a part of self-extinction science. Maybe the dinosaurs started eating their own eggs.

“Ah! But these research embryos are frozen ‘extras’ destined for the dump. And if healing therapies are discovered, any cultivated embryos would be brought into existence only for that purpose.” An assertion like this does not come from a Naturalist. Read on.

The ability of making “test tube” embryos opens a whole new world for the thinking, non-cannibalistic Evolutionist! Rather than growing embryos for harvest why not grow them for birth and unique adulthood? With current technologies, the “test tube” would be replaced by a “rubberized womb” – programmed to imitate a mother’s daily range of activity. And here’s the best part. All the fluids would be completely free of contaminants! No crack babies, no junk food babies, no babies damaged by alcohol …. These newcomers would be free of all impurities – except for what existed in the first two original cells! What an enhancement to evolutionary development! So, what makes more sense scientifically? Cannibalize the coming generation for a current, malady-ridden, older one, or bring all embryos to fruition as they may hold the beneficial mutations we desperately need? For the Naturalist, the answer is evident.

The Biblical Theistic View. Before the advent of artificial insemination, egg fertilization occurred only in the womb at the discretion of the Creator. But even in the “test tube,” man cannot make the egg fertile – much less make an embryo. These “test tube” embryos are simply the result of humans manipulating other human life. Manipulation into life does not translate into creator rights over life. Embryos are not reduced to fodder for cannibalization or the garbage dump. These “throw away” embryos are as human as you and I. Whoever manipulates these humans into life are responsible for their well being. The manipulator becomes – a surrogate parent.

Man will always be subject to the decrees, standards and judgements of the Creator of life. The Author of the Bible claims to be that Creator, and there is no indication He ever intends on relinquishing this position of sole dominion. “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me. It is I who put to death and give life ….” (Deut 32:39). I believe the “spark” that causes innately inorganic elements to come to life will always rest with the Creator. Man will never figure it out, replicate it, or bottle it.

Once alive, no human can act against the life of another human unless that human is guilty of a capital offense. An embryo is fully – and only – human life. These attacks on embryos are premeditated killings with future charges of cannibalism. “All unrighteousness is sin” (1 Jn 5:17).

The Bible maintains that human life is the most important object in our observable physical universe. It would be better to face the Creator as a lying, thieving, slovenly drunk – rather than an embryonic stem cell research advocate or participant. The eternal punishment will be less severe.

Some contend these “extra” embryos should be used for the greater good – research now and therapies later. After all, these are not scheduled for implant – and will simply perish. This is an amoral position based upon an assumption that the embryo’s perilous plight is now no one’s responsibility. This assumption will not prevail before the Creator.

The Humanistic View. It is only here that embryonic stem cell endeavors have a home. Because the embryo is nothing more than a blob of protoplasm, then anything can be done with it – and to it. The life of the embryo can be experimented with, removed, or given to another human. After all, an embryo is only the size of this period. (Your eye just skipped it.) For the Humanist, any consideration contrary to the embryo’s life – trumps that life. The curiosity of researchers trump the embryo’s life. Cries for cures trump the embryo’s life. Economic gains for a State (i.e., California) trump the embryo’s life. Politicians, who smell the gain of votes, trump the embryo’s life. Any grounds which the Humanist envisions as some kind of gain for somebody – other than the embryo – trump the embryo’s life. The unscientific declaration – “the preborn is not human life” – fosters all kinds of predictable atrocities. With science abandoned and Biblical Theism ignored, the sole authority for valuation is opinion – grounded in nothing. The “substance” of Humanism is thin air….

[Many pro-lifers warned that legalized abortion would lead to an overall devaluation of human life. But, I doubt anyone envisioned cannibalism of the preborn.]

Simon Paisley asked:


Many parents these days are choosing to have their baby’s umbilical cord blood frozen and stored as a future source of stem cells. This article looks at the different ways in which blood and stem cell samples are stored.

The process of having your baby’s umbilical cord blood collected, processed in a laboratory and kept in frozen storage is a relatively new one. The idea is that the whole blood containing the stem cells or the extracted stem cells themselves are available for future use if the child needs any medical treatments which require them. Although some treatments such as those for sickle cell disease, leukemia and Hodgkin’s disease already use these cells, the idea is to also have a stock of compatible cells that can be used in treatments yet to be developed. Since the use of this type of cell for medical treatments is the subject of much current research, the likelihood of new treatments becoming available in the future is high. These future treatments have the potential to offer cures for diseases, injuries and conditions that are incurable today.

The collection and storage process starts just after birth when the umbilical cord blood collection kit supplied by the storage company is used by one of the medical professionals to safely and painlessly collect the blood from the cord. This sample is then transported to the storage company’s laboratory for processing. Some companies will extract the stem cells from the cord blood before freezing the sample, whereas others freeze the whole blood.

Liquid Phase Nitrogen

The sample is frozen in a storage tank which is cooled by liquid nitrogen at around minus 190 degrees Celsius. This extremely low temperature can preserve the quality of the sample for many years. There are, however, important storage tank design factors to take into account when deciding which method of storage to choose. The two main types of tank both use liquid nitrogen for freezing, but use it in different ways. The oldest method uses liquid nitrogen in its liquid phase to freeze the sample and keep it at the required temperature for storage. The important thing to remember is that there are usually also other samples from other individuals in the same storage tank. The liquid phase nature of the nitrogen in the tank means that there is a possible risk of contamination of samples by infectious disease particles if there was one or more infected samples in the tank. The liquid nitrogen can carry infectious particles, such as viruses, between samples. There is evidence that transmission of Hepatitis B virus between samples has occurred while the samples were stored in liquid phase nitrogen.*

Vapour Phase Nitrogen

The other design of storage tank also uses liquid nitrogen, but it is used in a different way. The liquid nitrogen is confined to the walls of the storage container, and only vapour phase nitrogen comes into contact with the samples. This means that any infectious particles present in a sample could not be carried to other samples to cause contamination. In the past, concerns were voiced about the vapour phase nitrogen’s ability to maintain the correct storage temperature when the tank was opened for access. Design improvements now mean that a constant temperature can be maintained in this design of storage tank.

*Tedder R., M. Zuckerman, A. Goldstone, A. Hawkins, A. Fielding, E. Briggs, D. Irwin, S. Blair, A. Gorman, K. Patterson, D. Linch, J. Heptonstall, and N. Brink. 1995. Hepatitis B transmission from contaminated cryopreservation tank. Lancet 346: 137-140.

Don Margolis asked:


I call adult stem cell the greatest medicine in the history of mankind.

Think about that a little bit. What other medicine has absolutely no side effects? What other medicine can improve the condition of 100+ diseases and conditions. What other medicine other than adult stem cells can also help horses, dogs, and cats? What other medicine can help heal serious injuries such as broken bones, cartilage, and spinal cord injuries?

Stem cell treatment using adult stem cells is the future of medicine and the future is now. Adult stem cell treatment has the unique ability to replace cells and repair tissue affected by disease, age, and injury.

Adult Stem Cell therapy offers hope to billions of people, from heart disease patients who are in congestive heart failure, to Parkinson’s and Multiple Sclerosis patients, diabetic patients so they can eliminate their insulin, even helping paralyzed patients by Spinal Cord Injuries- just to name a few.

Adult Stem Cell Treatment offers no controversy such as the controversy associated with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have no risk of rejection. The worst thing that can happen when adult stem cells are used is that the adult stem cells don’t help- ie. no improvement. Not to mention that adult stem cells can save and improve millions of lives (and save billions of dollars in medical costs) right now.

Raising awareness of the benefits of adult stem cell treatment is vital to achieve that. For example, right now, in the United States, there are millions of heart patients who can benefit from adult stem cells, but it isn’t available to them. Even if they are fortunate to find the miracle stem cell treatment that may help them, they often have to travel half way around the world just to receive that treatment. There must be a better way and adult stem cells is the way. Let’s make them available in the United States and the rest of an unsuspecting world today!

Lawrence Ebert asked:


The stem cell article by Jennifer Washburn in the April 12, 2006 issue of the Los Angeles Times mentioned Jeanne Loring, an embryologist at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla: In 1999, Loring tried to launch a company to work with stem cells, but the firm quickly collapsed when it couldn’t raise the $100,000 in upfront fees the Wisconsin foundation [WARF] charged.

Washburn’s article did not mention an earlier article by Loring and co-author Cathryn Campbell, entitled “Intellectual Property and Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” which appeared in 311 Science 1716 on March 24, 2006. Therein, Loring and Campbell mentioned the changing royalty fees charged by WARF in response to a “memo of understanding” (MOU) with the federal funding agency. Loring/Campbell mentioned the “SBIR paradox” as to funding of small businesses, which may be a problem, but not one associated with patent law.

Both the Washburn and Loring/Campbell articles suggested that the WARF/Thomson patents would pose a long-term threat to stem cell science. Washburn noted the position of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, based in Santa Monica, which urges California’s stem cell agency to challenge the Wisconsin patents. In greater detail, the Santa Monica group stated: The stem cell institute faces a threat from a foundation associated with the University of Wisconsin [WARF], which claims that it is owed licensing fees because it holds patents on all human embryonic stem cells in the United States. John M. Simpson stated: “This is an outrageous raid on the treasury of California based on over-reaching patents. No other nation in the world recognizes them. They are blocking vital research in the United States. I call on the stem cell institute to challenge the patents’ validity.”

Neither the Washburn nor Loring/Campbell articles discuss the possible research safe harbor created in the Hatch-Waxman Act and codified at 35 USC 271(e)(1). The breadth of this safe harbor was recently affirmed in the Supreme Court decision of Merck v. Integra. Neither the Washburn nor Loring/Campbell articles discuss that patent infringement suits against states and state bodies (such as California’s CIRM) are likely to be heard in state court, not federal court, according to the Supreme Court decision in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary.

Although there may be a visceral reaction to lash out against patents perceived to be overbroad, the cautionary tale of NTP v. RIM suggests that sometimes negotiation is the better path for infringement defendants. Further, Loring/Campbell mention the possibility of an interference with Plurion, although this most likely would change only the identity of the owner of controlling patents. Separately, one recalls that the Thomson patents are about creating stem cells from blastocysts; they are not about “cloning” [SCNT] technology. To date, traditional methods for stem cell separation from blastocysts have failed wherein SCNT is involved. There may be a question of enablement as to the Thomson patents for cases involving SCNT, which is where the holy grail of patient-specific stem cell lines resides.

As a general proposition, the state taxpayers underwriting efforts such as Proposition 71 have the expectation that money will be used for research, not to litigate the patent positions of prior researchers. Extrapolating further, state funding to achieve patent positions could lead to a balkanization of research, in which entities from individual states (such as California, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Connecticut) are fighting one another, rather than collaborating.

Gary P Owen asked:


Recent advances in stem cell research have shown that it is possible to reverse the effects of multiple sclerosis with stem cells being replaced. While this is still in the experimental stage some measure of success has been achieved in independent studies conducted at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago by Dr Richard K. Burt and his colleagues.

The study involved a group of 21 patients who were all relatively young and in the relapsing-remitting phase of multiple sclerosis. Stem cells were harvested from their own bone marrow and chemicals were used to destroy all the existing immune cells within the patient’s body. Younger people were selected because they had fewer disabilities and were not responding to interferon therapy. Previous attempts at this type of therapy had only limited success so the thought was that younger healthier patients might fare better.

The theory is that the body is stripped of all the immune cells that are the cause of multiple sclerosis. Stem cells that were removed from the patient’s own bone marrow are then injected back into the blood stream. These “naïve” stem cells would then repopulate the body with cells that have not been triggered to target the myelin and no further damage would be done to the myelin sheath.

The study was conducted over a period of three years and the results were hopeful. Seventeen of the patients showed an improvement of one full point on the disability scale. Five of the patients relapsed but after further treatment went into remission. After three years none of the patients showed any signs that the disease was progressing and 16 of them were no longer suffering from relapses. Some of the patients showed signs of improvement and reported no major side effects from the treatment of multiple sclerosis with stem cells.

While these results are impressive the treatment of multiple sclerosis with stem cells is still in its infancy and much more testing needs to be done.  The specialists are waiting to see if the immune system has actually been completely reset or if it has merely been suppressed for a longer period of time. Still they are very optimistic that this type of therapy will help those patients in the relapse-remitting phase.

Peter Emerson asked:


Biotechnology and religion often do not mix. Consider some of the major biotechnological advances that have happened within the past decade. With each news report outlining the benefits of the new technology, it also touches on the opposition, often by religious groups.

Biotechnology and religion is a matter of ethics. Where do you draw the line between science and religion? Do religious groups have a right to try and intervene? Controversial sciences such as cloning and stem cell research will inevitably raise the question of ethics. Is it right for humans to try to spark life? Some say it is playing God. Others see it as important. It is hard to say whether or not biotechnology and religion really can mix.

Do you want to understand the subject of biotechnology and religion better? The best thing to do is research. Go to your library and look up the different resources on biotechnology and also on science and how it and religion have functioned over the years. It seems that each generation has a controversial science that causes the religious to question it. The generation after that looks at the new science as normal and doesn?t think of it. Will this happen to the current field of biotechnology? Will cloning become so common that most people won’t think it is strange or remarkable?

It seems that biotechnology and religion don’t necessarily need to compete with each other. Perhaps the issue of one versus the other has to do more with a lack of knowledge than ethics. I think that both sides will coexist better if they understood each other a little more and were more tolerant of their own differences. So when a new scientific advancement in the field of biotechnology comes out, instead of panicking and becoming outraged, perhaps opponents can practice a little understanding.

Kanquona Bhattacharjee asked:


Medical science is doing wonders by means of its inventions and its proper application. It has enabled mankind to show his mastery over the god. The medical professionals are curing a number of people of their diseases and giving them a new lease of life everyday. A man can change his god-gifted features wishfully with the help of science. Even gender change is no longer a matter of surprise and awe. So man is seen defying their god in a way. But still he is unable to conquer the place occupied by the almighty God; he cannot impart life to all persons who are destined die. There are many such avenues left that are to be ventured by man. So, day–by-day man is trying to reach the ultimate knowledge.

Of late, a striking invention of medical science has made man to see a ray of hope. Patients of incurable diseases have to undergo very painful process to continue their life. The patients of Thalassemia have to live on blood transfusion throughout their life. But the invention of the procedure to cure blood disorder has shown its patients a gleaming horizon.

The doctors claims that the cord blood or can be better explained as the blood collected from the umbilical cord of a woman, soon after her second delivery , can save her first thalassemic born child. This blood is collected after the umbilical cord has been severed from the new-born. The cord blood is a rich source of stem cell. These cells are found at different stages of foetal development. Stem cells are also present in several adult tissues. It has the potentials to cure almost 75 serious ailments, from blood disorder to heart and eye ailment to Type 1 diabetes. Diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, to name a few, can be cured using cord blood. Stem cells form part of our blood and immune system and they help to grow other cells in our body’s system. Thus it is expected to be a cure for cancer also.

The most striking feature that has made the invention more useful is the capacity of storing the cord blood. There are banking facilities where the parents can store the blood. If the first child of a couple is suffering from a blood disorder or any other disease that stem cell can cure, and the mother is expecting her second child, she could store her cord blood. This blood has the quality to cure her first thalassemic child. Number of couples is storing their cord blood for any future need. The parents who decide to store the cord blood have to undergo a proper HLA (human leukocyte antigen) match. It is a procedure through which the immune system recognizes ‘self’ and rejects ‘non-self’ cell, then the stem cell is transplanted into the patient’s body.

There are mainly three kinds of stem cell transplantation namely adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells and cord blood cells. Here one caveat is that the stem cells taken from adult bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells are prone to rejection while cord blood stem cells are more adaptable and acceptable. However in India, the adult stem cells are mainly collected from bone marrow. For bone marrow, a perfect 6 out of 6 HLA match is required to prevent tissue rejection. But in case of cord blood stem cells for some diseases even 2 out of 6 match will suffice, but the chance is rare as the cord blood is collected immediately after birth.

In India the banking facility is available in the cities like Mumbai, Gurgaon, Chennai, and soon Kolkata will have one. Before delivery the parents can deposit Rs. 35000/- to Rs. 40000/- ($800 to $1000) initially and have to pay 10% of the deposit annually. So people can any corner of the world can store the cord blood stem cells of their children into these banks quite easily. With rapid advancement in stem cell research, the day is not too far when we will bid adieu to all generic diseases.