Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Thanks once again for all of the helpful information.

I was doing some online research of my own about the subject when I ran across something that I had not thought about before.

Because there is another set of DNA besides the potential patient’s involved in a stem cell line, the donor stem cells must be tissue-matched against the recipient, just like in transplant procedures.

So the embryonic stem cell therapies being touted to the public today are pipedreams, for the most part. The truly promising goal would be to take cells from the patient, somehow make them into embryo-like stem cells (i.e. pluripotent) and treat the patient with those cells. That way there would be no need for tissue-matching or fear of rejection; the cells would for all intents and purposes be the patient’s own cells.

Of course, the sticky wicket is genetic disease. If you’ve got an organ problem that’s caused by your DNA (possibly juvenile diabetes, for instance), then the type of therapy I mentioned above doesn’t work. Then it’s necessary to do what basically amounts to a cellular transplant, with all of the requisite tissue-matching and anti-rejection drugs.

I tried to point that out when I talked about what kinds of research would prove promising and which would be dead ends. If what you’re saying is true - that the exact same results can be obtained by adult stem cell research - then that could be a horse of a different color.

Re contamination, corruption, watevah (as Raven would say): if that’s also what you meant, indeed you had a good point (not to help your argument any) in the fact that the current collection of ES lines is not really usable for clinical research. This goes right in keeping with the pro-ES cell folk’s desire to get that ES-cell research legislation passed. My big argument, and Penelope’s, is that all this focus is on a technology that, like the Silver Bullet for cancer, is neither proven nor likely to pan out in the way everyone hopes it will… and here we have adult stem cells a plenty that are already curing people in clinics.

Take that, John “I’ll Say Anything to Get Elected” Edwards, for your numbskull line in Election 2004 that (paraphrasing) “If John Kerry and I are elected, the lame will walk again” through ES cell research. Not necessary; those same-patient nose cells (olfactory ensheathing cells) I referred to in my post are doing it already with little or no risk of tissue rejection.

As always…ships passing in the night.

And thanks for bailing me out on Sue’s question. Maybe if I’m going to post science stuff I should know what the heck I’m talking about first!

Sue in essence reiterates some of the points from my original post and brings up a very good point and question about funding. Yes, the restrictions are only for federally funded research. Folks researching at private research institutes with no NIH or NSF funds can go right along and fiddle, as can industry (within the law, i.e., no cloning humans).

Sue, I can’t answer your thesis regarding private industry asking for gov’t funding directly; however rest assured that industry is simply marching along with ES cell research, though quietly (as is their wont, for intellectual property reasons).

However this begs the more fundamental question: why the devil is human embryonic stem cell research all the rage, as compared to the more-proven adult stem cell research?

To help answer, please allow me to bring into this discussion Penelope, a new writer (and scientist by training) at my blog, who just posted the companion piece to my original post that Rick linked. In it she addresses the glamour factor of human embryonic stem cell research that reigns, despite the difficult ethics (for many) and the dubious promise (for real) that this technology holds.

Re Rick’s question re “contamination” of ES lines: what’s meant here is that in order to grow ES cells in culture you usually need to grow them with “feeder cells” which help provide growth factors and other goodies they need. Traditionally the feeder cells have been mouse-derived cells, which could render the ES cells useless for any clinical application. Mostly, all the however-many-there-are cell lines have such feeder cells so they could be used for research only in a limited way. However, I think that there are ways now to culture ES cells in a growth medium without feeder cells… I need to check on that.

(N.B.: Rick, now I’m going to have to wait awhile to get back to your original comment - life and work have interceded for the moment. In short: I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree…)

It’s my understanding that some of the stem cell lines approved for research have been “corrupted” whatever the heck that means. This is one of those things that I take my cue from people who know a hell of a lot more than I. And the people involved in the research say they need it.

Perhaps TMH when he stops by to look at my response to him will take a stab at answering your question.

About embryonic stem cell research:

- There are currently no laws that forbid embryonic stem cell research.

- The “restrictions” that everyone talks about are simply criteria for receiving federal funding for research. In other words, having taxpayers foot the bill for such activity.

- There are already 78 stem-cell lines that can be used in federally funded embryonic stem cell research. These are available without all of the same strings attached to harvesting fresh embryos for new stem cell lines.

- Adult stem cells are producing results where embryonic stem cells are not, so much so that there is more privately-funded research going on in this area than in embryonic stem cells. Private companies only fund research when they see hope of returns on investment.

So why is there all of this screaming to grab more embryos? What can be done with these stem cells that can’t be done with the others mentioned above? And if it holds so much promise, why isn’t private industry jumping into it with both feet instead of panhandling from the government?

Well, the statement I made about embryos and life referred to my definition of viable life, i.e. for purposes of defining within the law and for which government is responsible.

Government cannot say that life begins at conception. This is opinion, not science. The processes that lead to life may begin then but, using your virus analogy, how attatched are we to the Poliomyelitis virus?

Not fair to compare a human embryo with a virus? Perhaps. The point is, for purposes of law, government must define when life begins not acording to religious or even moral tenets but according to the “best evidence” available.

BTW, my definition of life viable outside of the womb includes people like Terri Schiavo and encompasses most people that the euthanizers want to throw in the trash. Quality of life has nothing to do with it. Viable life is viable life, period.