MAPPING STEM CELL RESEARCH: Terra Incognita on PBS tonight

I hope this doensn't constitute as spam.This program will premiere tonight and be shown again on the 17th. The following is the direct link to the PBS website.Mapping Stem Cell Research: Terra Incognita | ITVSCheck for your local listings at http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/broadcast.htmlYou can watch the preview at the following link:http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/stemcell/previewpop.htmlHere is what the film is about.

quote:

---

Because of its immense implications, the debate over stem cell research has become more heated and nuanced with recent scientific advances. With the passage”and veto”of federal and state legislation regarding this research, a variety of questions have entered the national dialogue. What is the public need for this research? Who will have access to these treatments? Who will own the results of scientific breakthroughs?

​

MAPPING STEM CELL RESEARCH: Terra Incognita puts a human face on this controversial subject. When neurologist Dr. Jack Kessler’s daughter injured her spine in a skiing accident, he turned his energies toward finding a method to repair damaged spinal cords, re-focusing his research on developing a therapy using embryonic stem cells to regenerate the damaged parts of the nervous system. His research has taken him into a politically very sensitive area in which Catholic and fundamentalist Christian views about the beginning of life exert a powerful influence.

​

Kessler uses his position to educate the public about the benefits of stem cell research through public speaking engagements and articles for the newspaper. In his work with two graduate students, Vicki and Vibhu, he guides them through a painstaking experiment on mice with spinal damage. In addition, during one of the weekly lab meetings with his students, Kessler discusses the religious objections and misunderstandings regarding stem cell research. His colleague, Dr. Laurie Zoloth, who shares in Kessler’s public education efforts, also delves into the moral and ethical questions surrounding the research in her classes on bioethics. The questions are difficult ones, involving different religious beliefs and the meaning of human suffering.

​

Responding to the views of the majority of Americans, Congress passed the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2005, which was vetoed by President Bush. Another bill supporting stem cell research made its way though Congress in 2007 and also received a presidential veto. The discussion and debate continue as individual states pass laws affecting stem cell research, while other countries move ahead in this field.

​

Through the personal experiences of the Kesslers, lab researchers and others affected by spinal cord injury, MAPPING STEM CELL RESEARCH follows the evolving interplay between the promise of new discoveries and the controversy of modern science.

​

Research Update
The filming of MAPPING STEM CELL RESEARCH ended in 2006. In November 2007, a major breakthrough in stem cell research was announced. Scientists in the U.S. and Japan, working independently, discovered a way to reprogram skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. The development is likely to transform research and possibly eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells, bringing an end to the ethical debate. Dr. Robert Lanza, chief science officer at the biotech company Advanced Cell Technology, said that medical uses of stem cells developed using the new technique were many years away. "I can't overemphasize the use of caution here," Lanza said. "These are not ready for prime time."

---

Cheers!

Just bumping for those who haven't noticed this. I have a love/hate relationship with the concept of stem cell research.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I just noticed this just now. I guess I'll catch it on Thursday.Thanks.

Not just skin cells.In fact, an entire heart, a beating heart, was grown from stem cells.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/...3048877-2703,00.html

quote:

---

The procedure involved stripping all the existing cells from a dead heart so that only the protein "skeleton" that created its shape was left.

​

Then the skeleton was seeded with live "progenitor" cells, which multiplied and grew back over it, eventually linking together into a new organ. Such cells are involved in the formative stages of specialised types of tissue such as those found in the heart.

---

Aren't "progenitor" cells the same as undifferentiated adult stem cells? My autogenic white cell stem cell transplant was done with progenitor cells taken from my blood.

quote:

---

However, Professor Doris Taylor, director of the university’s centre for cardiovascular repair, believes it could be a significant step towards creating custom-built hearts, blood vessels and other organs for people with serious illness.

​

The big advantage of such an approach is that organs so built would use stem cells taken from the patient so the body’s immune system would not reject them.

---

Which is why my progenitor\stem cells were used. An allogenic white cell stem cell transplant would be done with progenitor cells taken from someone else's blood, and anti-rejection drugs would be needed for the rest of your life. The whole point of fetal stem cell research is that they would be "autogenic" for everyone, and you would not have the rejection problems. With white cell transplants rejection gets ugly, because it is the blood that rejects the body. But he was talking about turning skin cells into stem cells, not growing skin from stem cells.This is all good stuff.Now for the "bad" stuff ...This doesn't resolve the issue of fetal stem cells, and we will never know whether they can be as good as fetal stem cells without fully investigating fetal stem cells. We don't know what fetal stem cells are capable of doing and what they are not capable of doing. Can they provide a permanent cure for diabetes, parkinson's, demetia, etc?The issue of fetal stem cells is - IMH(ysa)O - unnecessarily complicated by religious fanatics and people trying to make political hay for the religious right.The plain fact is that after 10 years of storage, over 99% of the embryos that could be used for stem cell research will never become living thinking breathing human beings. The alternative then, when these embryos no longer need to be preserved is that they will be discarded. Thrown out in the trash.The plain fact is that embryos just do not qualify as living thinking breathing human beings (see Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion for a discussion on this issue). Nor can they become living thinking breathing human beings without being transformed and embellished by an extensive medical procedure. They are on life support, awaiting either disposal or medical use.The plain fact is that the parents own the embryos, and should be the ones to decide whether they want to donate -- just like organ donation from children, when it comes time to terminate life support.The plain fact is that over 2/3 (IIRC) of the parents involved were willing to donate their remaining embryos to science. They are willing to make that choice based on their moral and ethical standards and on their perceived lack of need for embryos to be preserved any longer.The plain fact is that there is no real ethical question here that has not already been covered with organ transplants and the definition of death that is currently used.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

exactly.but, just like these whackos flipping out on the radio this morning saying "i won't use meat or dairy from cloned animals because it's not safe" people make shit up. they just make up lies.

What are the problems you have? This also gets into the question of what you want to discuss on your thread - the status of stem cell research or the ethical questions that (maybe 1/3rd max) of the population have?Let me make a prediction: less than 10% of the american population will refuse the benefits of stem cell research when it comes to a question of their own life.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

What are the problems you have?

---

A part of me wants to define human life to begin at the point of conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg and a membrane forms around the fertilized egg to prevent other sperm cells from entering.Another part of me wants to only see it as a potential for human life but not necessarily human life itself. In this case, when does human life begin? For now, I'd have to say I don't know exactly when but I think I have a good idea of generally when.Stem cell research offers a lot of promises. It has the potential to cure many currently incurable diseases and injuries. In other words, it's weighing the benefits between the potential for life and life itself, which I think a fully human being would of course win out.

quote:

---

Let me make a prediction: less than 10% of the american population will refuse the benefits of stem cell research when it comes to a question of their own life.

---

No need to predict. I fully realize just how selfish people can be when it comes to their own benefits.The love/hate relationship I have with stem cell research is like my love/hate relationship with spring. While I enjoy the warmth and flowery scenes, I also have spring allergies. I'd be the person sneezing and coffing all the time in the back of the room.

quote:

---

just like these whackos flipping out on the radio this morning saying "i won't use meat or dairy from cloned animals because it's not safe" people make shit up.

---

Europe, I believe, is on the forefront of not accepting meat and dairy products from cloned animals. They also don't like fruits and vegetables that have been genetically engineered, which I don't really get considering civilization have been genetically engineering our food supplies for thousands of years.

all you have to do is look at corn. it's been specifically engineered for it's purpose. it used to look kind of like wheat.as far as i'm concerned, clones are twins, whether animal, mineral, vegetable, or human. my clone would no more be a replication of me than a twin of mine would be.but this is entirely off-topic.

Except the egg and the sperm were alive, so life is not formed, nor do you have a living breathing human being, so a living breathing human being was not formed. What happened is that two humans shook hands ...
genetically.From Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion (I am in the process of updating this for a new post, as there seems to be a cycle of interest in this topic):

quote:

---

In one sense, once you start arguing about "when does life begin" you need to take the argument to it's logical conclusion -- the very first single living cell, some 3.5 billion years ago or so. There has been a continuing transfer of living material from that point in time to every living thing in existence today. THAT is when {life} began.

​

In another sense, the material that makes up every living thing is in a constant state of being replaced. People have an entirely new skin every 2 months or so. Other parts take longer to be replaced, but every part that forms a living adult human being today was not a part of that {being} when they were a child. The molecular and cellular material that makes up a living {being} today was not what made a living {being} in the measurable past. If all life is in a constant state of flux then how can one say where it "begins" (or ends)? It is not logical to define human life based on the existence of one or even a few cells.

​

Thus to state that life "begins" when an egg is fertilized or at some other point in the cycles of cell division and growth is just as arbitrary as saying it is when a child is born, or even, say, reaches the age of ten.

​

There are fundamental differences between a fetus and a baby, including some changes that occur shortly after birth before the baby is fully functioning as a living breathing laughing human. These changes are part of the challenge in helping prematurely born babies to live (which they normally do not do when there is no treatment): ...

​

These are substantial changes that occur at birth and transform a fetus into a baby. The term "unborn baby" is misleading, as it ignores these substantial differences. A fetus with adult hemoglobin will not get enough oxygen to grow and develop, and a baby with a fetal heart will also die.

​

There are also limits to how early a fetus can be removed from the womb and be kept alive by medical technology. This limit lowers steadily as technology and knowledge improve, but there appears to be a limit at which the result is less than desirable to many people.

​

These premature babies, "premies," are not born fully functioning (mature) babies, they needed machines to replace functions of the natural womb to finish their development, and would have normally die without it. In one sense they are not fully "born" until they can survive off the machines, but it is normal social convention to consider them born as they have been removed from the womb (the same rational is used for the term "partial-birth abortion" although for different end purposes).

​

Only 38.7% of the premies admitted to the neo-natal intensive care survived, and of those on 50% did not have significant complications\disabilities. This is a 19.4% "success" rate.

---

Only 1 in 5 of preemies born or removed by cesarean section survive at 24 weeks of gestation. I would not say that 24 weeks is a usable definition of viable human life, as it could be wrong 4 out of 5 times.Furthermore there is the issue of getting to that stage. From message 45 of that thread:

quote:

---

Notice that technically "fetus" refers to the last 6-7 months of development, preceded by the zygote to embryo stages (Human Development Chart), and that this is about where the life\death line is crossed as well. The chart also says (bold mine for emphasis):

day 7 - 9: Blastocyst implants in wall of uterus (55% of Zygotes never reach this stage.)

​

{and further down:} 15 % of pregnancies miscarry during weeks 4-12

With just those two figures you are down to 75% of 45% = 33.75%, or a 1/3rd natural "success" to that point: 65% of zygotes never make it to week 12 normally.

---

(note to self for new version: that should be 85% of 45% = 38.25%)Now at 24 weeks of gestation we have 20% of 38% = 7.7% of conceptions being viable human beings.This means that less than 1 in 13 of conceptions can survive at 24 weeks of gestation. I would not say that conception is a usable definition of viable human life, as it could be wrong 12 out of 13 times.I compared this to setting the definition of human life at when an individual reaches 10 years of age. That too is arbitrary, but errs on the conservative side. Thus you already recognize the weakness of the "life begins at conception" argument - the zygote is not a fully human being. It became rather personal for me after the above article was posted. See Cancer Survivors:

quote:

---

Research is focusing on stem cell and bone marrow transplants coupled with extreme chemo-therapy designed to kill as much of the cancer as possible - along with all the white blood cells and bone stem cells that produce new white blood cells, then injecting the new stem cells to make new lymph, hopefully without the cancer. This is the best hope for cure of this kind of cancer.

​

Of course fetal stem cells would offer even more chance of cure without rejection problems, but we are now 6 years further from this research ...

---

Make that 7 going on 8 years of political stonewalling.As noted above there are presently two options - autogenic and allogenic transplants. I'd like to think I had one more option the next time I need it.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

My bad, RAZD. Thank you for setting me straight.

quote:

---

Except the egg and the sperm were alive, so life is not formed, nor do you have a living breathing human being, so a living breathing human being was not formed. What happened is that two humans shook hands ...
genetically.

---

That's one way of approaching it.

quote:

---

Thus you already recognize the weakness of the "life begins at conception" argument - the zygote is not a fully human being.

---

Don't get me wrong. If it were up to me, I'd make it possible so that every possible answer to helping and curing people that has even the least chance of delivering what it promises would be sort after. It doesn't mean I have to personally deep down like it. I will embrace it, nonetheless.

quote:

---

I'd like to think I had one more option the next time I need it.

---

Well, I'm certainly glad you're here with us today