TAG of the Week: Stem Cells
Moving around the embryo debate, researchers have managed to avoid killing embryonic stem cells in stem cell research. Do you think we avoid controversy by using this method? While it is still in its nascent stages, many mutations can still occur. Should we continue on in this path to perfect this procedure so we avoid the ethical debate of destroying an embryo? What potential ethical issues are there?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/13/ips-reprogrammed-stem-cells
The UK and Sweden have relatively more liberal rules with stem cell research and researchers in these countries have made many valuable contributions to the scientific and medical community, while other countries in the EU have placed more rigid rules on stem cell research. President Obama also overturned the ban that former President Bush placed on using federal spending on stem cell research. By allowing more research to be focused on stem cells, are we actually helping or potentially harming future generations? Do you think we have been promised too many cures from using stem cells with little results in recent years? If you think that we should press on with stem cell research, can you provide examples where stem cells have proved to be quite successful in treatment and therapies?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110316/full/471280a.html
Using iPS cells should in theory "remove the ethical roadblocks faced by embryonic stem cells." I wouldn't always argue to use different methodology simply to prevent controversy, however, since controversy is what has hindered stem cell research in the U.S., a new method could potentially expedite the process. There are many reasons to perfect the use of iPS cells, the end of embryonic destruction being only one them. The significant developments made by Paul Fairchild and others show the potential that perfecting this method could bring. Unperfected, iPS cells have already modeled diseases such as sickle cell anemia and juvenille diabetes and the potential for dendritic cells to dial down the body's immune response to transplanted tissue and organs could be monumental. I am not surprised that there is concern over defective or mutated iPS cells. This is a completely new line of research; there are bound to be problems as there are with all medical innovations at one point or another. This does not mean that all research should cease. Undoubtedly, there are ethical issues that arrise with iPS research. There will always be those that argue against using "unnatural" cells as a medical treatment just as there were those that opposed fertilization outside of the womb as unnatural. However, medical innovations have not and most likely will not be acceptable to everyone but that does not mean that progress should cease.
ReplyDeleteIt is understandable that the lack of true, significant success stories using stem cells has caused people to question the value of continuing this research. I do not think we are harming future generations at this point because there is no other research but that of stem cells that shows such promise and far-reaching applications should it be perfected. It would clearly be disappointing should stem cell research prove to be a fruitless effort but at this point it is too early to tell. The hype of stem cell research has yet to die down so pressing on seems to be the only option as Obama has overturned the ban on using federal funding on stem cell research. According to the NIH website, the U.S. is still in the clinical trial phase of stem cell application, with three trials using human embryonic stem cells (hECSs) currently active. They cite the potential for stem cell research without recognizing any successful hECSs treatment examples. However, with so much invested in stem cell research already it seems only prudent to continue.
I think that by using iPS cells we are definatly avoiding controversy. By using skin cells and lab processes to manipulate the cells we are not endangering the life of a future human. Although at present, there are many problms with this process including the threat of a growth of tumors in the patient recieving the cells it is more likely to be ethically acceptable. If the public can agree that future lives are not being endangerd and the government can apply funds without resistance from the public greater scientific achievements are likely to arise in the near future. If this method was abandoned and the old method used it is likely that there would be an outcry to stop commiting moral wrongs and political feuds between what is acceptable for science and medicine and what is appropriate for obtaining these advancements. There are less ethical issues remaining when iPS cells are used than when stem cells are used however like any medical procedure there is bound to be some moral resistance from the community. I think without a doubt we are helping not hurting future generations by moving forward with stem cell research. The benefits that could come from the experimentation will affect not only one generation positively but all future generations whereas the negative has the ability to affect only one generation although this is still meaningful to the loss of that one generation. Although I think stem cell applcation has the potential to have profound effects in the medical community I think that too many promises are being made for the near future. Maybe someday they will be able to use stem cell technology to make identical healthy organs or to attack a tumor I do not think that these will be available for use anytime soon. When there is press about stem cell research I think the public gets unrealistic expectations from their lack of knowledge and understanding of the scientific and moral restrictions that are holding back the process. Currently bone marrow, and more recently, umbilical cord blood stem cells, have been used to treat cancer patients with conditions such as leukemia and lymphoma. Peripheral blood stem cells, or PBSCs, can be used just like bone marrow stem cells to treat leukemia, other cancers and various blood disorders as well.
ReplyDeleteResearchers have managed to avoid killing embryonic stem cells in stem cell research with the discovery of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. I also agree that we avoid controversy by using these iPS cells rather than the embryo stem (ES) cells because, as the article states, they are so much easier to make and give scientists an inexhaustible supply of material while preventing embryo destruction and all of the ethical turmoil that follows. iPS cells seem just as good as ES cells for research because they are "reprogrammed" to become an ES-like cell. This process enables researchers to have a larger supply of stem cells and track how certain genetic diseases develop. Although this research is still in its nascent stages, and many mutations can still occur, I believe that it definitely has good potential for the future and it is also more ethically acceptable to the public than destroying embryos to use ES cells. Risks, problems, and opposition will always be present in the development of any kind of new research but progress should not be inhibited rather made with precaution and careful considerations. This procedure is the more preferred alternative to using ES cells and so I think we should gradually continue on this path to perfect it. Models using iPS cells are already available for motor neurone disease, juvenile diabetes, and sickle cell anaemia, among others, and the progress has potential to expand. Those with more conservative views will definitely be opposed to the use of stem cells due to potential negative risks and the fact that it is still somewhat unknown territory. But by allowing more research to be focused on stem cells, I think we're helping future generations by paving a path of new knowledge and discovery. Even if our efforts appear unsuccessful, despite high hopes of promise, the progress we make may be helpful for new innovations in the future.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meghan in regards to the notion that using iPS cells avoids a lot of controversy. These cells have not come from a womb, and like stated in the second article even if the stem cells are pluripotent and do not have the capabilities to turn into a human, we cannot ignore the source of these cells. I feel that too much promises is being placed on stem cell research, and that we must be careful that we do not harm future life or generations. I think a major problem would be if this research got into the wrong hands and people started using stem cells as an industry or a means of making money. I can see why this debate causes so much controversy.
ReplyDeleteThe discovery and continued understanding of stem cells in my eyes was a grand one. Stem cells are differentiated from other cells because of their unique ability to begin as unspecialized cells that (under certain physiological conditions) can develop into tissue, or organ specific tissues, and have the ability to renew themselves through cell division. Stem cells have the capability to regularly divide and replace cells that have either fallen victim to age or damage. The major ethical dilemma regarding the theory of stem cell research is the use of embryonic cells. This process requires the destruction of blastocysts, and for those who believe that life begins at conception this process is seen and immoral. However, from stem cell research the process of cell differentiation is understood. With a good understanding of this process, illnesses such as cancers and many birth defects (which are a result of issues with cell division and differentiation) can be possibly controlled. Overall, I do not feel that the process of stem cell research is harming future generations; with further research, cures for some of the most serious chronic illnesses can be developed. With successful stem cell treatments for brain tumors, retinoblastomas, solid tumors, adult blood disorders, breast cancers, in addition to many other illnesses I think its significance is considerable.
ReplyDeleteI think that the use of iPS stem cells for scientific research may result in amazing discoveries and possible cures for diseases. The iPS stem cells are particularly advantageous for research due to the fact that they do not require the destruction of embryos. The fact that scientists, through the creation of iPS cells from patients with genetic diseases, can watch which genes are altered in a variety of patient conditions, including where and when it happens, is incredible. This can lead to the production of drugs that will be more effective in treatment. Although, there is so much potential when using these stem cells for scientific research, it seems as if there is still a great deal of research needed before any major discoveries are made. The formation of tumors and the possibility of tissues growing in the wrong place are major issues that must be worked through to ensure safe application of the cells. I think that the use of stem cells may help future generations, but not without many years of continuous research.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the new iPS system could be beneficial in removing some ethical issues from embryonic stem cell research but I still believe these issues will occur. It is hard to have a method that agrees with everyone especially in the world we live in with people with so many different opinions. I think using skin cells would be the least invasive and best method to obtain this information and I believe with the right research it could be really effective. I think it is difficult to fully trust stem cell research because some of the tests in the past have resulted in different types of treatment with little results. I don't think federal funding should be focused on stem cell research especially with the inconsistencies of the outcomes but I do believe this information if research accurately and effectively could change the outcome of future generations. This process needs to be less invasive and take years to be considered a success or failure. This research could be beneficial but not if the years of research and treatments are hurting our current generation. I believe this issue is going to be a problem for years to come until the kinks are worked out. Ethical issues will never go away but they can be compromised in an area of work like stem cell research and the iPS is a great example.
ReplyDeleteAs many people have stated, I do think this method has been developed to avoid controversy-- It doesn’t involve messing with embryonic cells. However, as this new method progresses there will be other ethical issues to consider. As of now, we know that mutations can occur. Also, "when transplanted into the body, such cells could grow unpredictably: clinicians worry most about tumour formation, although one can imagine other dangers, such as tissues growing in the wrong place." If this is the case, are we going to know for sure how these cells will react once inserted into the human body without having a human subject? Since these cells are not ‘natural’ per se, would they vary according to the genetic make-up of an individual?
ReplyDeleteI think that by allowing more research to focus on stem cells that are not embryonic cells, we are helping future generations, why not find a cure for disease that is harming so many people? I do think we have promised too many cures with little result but a lot of it has to do with the controversy behind this topic (policies, lack of funding, etc). Personally, it sounds like a great innovation, but I disagree with using embryonic stem cells. If this new method shows to be reliable and harmless in the future, then by all means people should be able to use it.
I think it can help to reduce the controversy because it removes the need for embryos. However, I think that many of the individuals who are against such research may be using that as an excuse to deny stem cell research and will find another way to make it appear controversial. I think we should continue perfecting this method but I also think that our society should realize the potential benefits of research with embryonic cells. Some potential ethical debates could cause individuals who cannot afford access to such treatment may feel they are being deprived of (possibly) more advanced and better treatments when compared to those with the financial means.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that conducting stem cell research will have a negative impact on future generations but it could be quite feasible that stem cells are a bust and not produce any positive contributions to the medical society. However, we will never know what the potential benefits of stems cells could be unless we preform the research on them. I believe we should continue to pursue stem cell research because it has the potential to greatly contribute to the medical community. Scientists have been able to construct a bladder from stem cells and transplant these bladders into individuals with cysts in their bladders that lead to ruptures in the bladder due to interstitial cystitis.
It is infamously difficult to come to an agreement on the topic of stem cell research, especially in the U.S. Stem cell research is an area of science which is more often talked about in the context of politics or religious views rather than medicine. Personally, I cannot comprehend passing up the use of embryonic cells if it means the potential cure for Parkinson’s, paralysis or even diabetes. The list of potential cures and treatments via stem cell use is endless. IPS definitely reduces the focus on policy and morality, and returns the focus to scientific and medical potential, which is a positive change. The predominant reasons for resistance against stem cell use will definitely be reduce or altogether eliminated. However, with studies showing that IPS cells can become mutated or defective when implanted in human subjects, concerns about using human volunteers in research studies are raised. So why are we more willing to risk injury to grown adult subjects (even if they are volunteering) but we so violently fight for the rights of embryonic cells with potential for human life?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think so much focus has been put on the harms of obtaining stem cells that the potential harmful uses of the research itself have been ignored. I say this simply to play devil’s advocate. Because stem cells allow us to regenerate cells damaged from old age, does nobody fear the potential use of this research to further increase lifespan? If the average lifespan in our country continues to rise, policy and financial issues will increase. What about the use of stem cells for more trivial things like cosmetic surgeries (ie: replacing botox or grafting? Ought this to be allowed? Last, insurance policy changes need to be discussed. This type of treatment appears to be quite costly, especially in its infancy. How greatly will stem cell treatments further increase health disparities and access to care in our already unequal system? Will people with more money be able to cure their cancer, diabetes, or Alzheimer’s while the poor continue to suffer? Or will insurance companies get on board with coverage for these procedures?
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that stem cell research is the future of medicine. Its potential is great but our ability to live up to expectations has, up until this point, been constantly stunted by resistance and debate. With the discovery of IPS cells, I think a vast amount of medical advancements will be made in years to come. We must be careful however, because there will always be a constant stream of issues linked with any new medical advancements.
As many people above me have said, I feel like stem cell research will always be scrutinized because of the ethical issues that arise from the earlier stem cell research involving embryonic stem cells. No matter how great the potential benefits of stem cells are, people will always come back to the embryonic research as a reason why further research shouldn’t be taken. With this being said, the introduction of iPS cells, in my opinion, should remove that ethical dilemma. But another issue arises because iPS cells may work the wrong way and produce unwanted results, such as creating a tumor. Even though this may be true, there is so much upside when it comes to introducing these stem cells (repairing tissues, curing chronic diseases). So in my opinion, perfecting the use of these cells through further research would lead to the improvement of future generations. Although recent research has not yielded satisfactory results, I think people expected too much when this research was first introduced. The fact that stem cells could transform into essential cells that are used by the body is reason enough to believe that the potential of these cells are incredible. I fully support stem cell research because of the versatility it brings to the treatments and/or cures it may bring to the table. It will take a long time before stem cells are accepted into society as a feasible means to cure certain complications, and acceptance is always an ethical problem, but we shouldn’t let that stop us from continuing research of iPS.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to embryonic stem cell research, I do not believe we should be limiting researchers as we do in the United States. Due to the nature of this research it is apparent that an ethical line should be drawn at some point; however, limiting researchers too much may also be limiting the progress of related medical advancements. Exploration into the practical applications of embryonic stem cells shows great potential in treating, if not curing, many chronic diseases. However, in such controversial issues, emotions often get in the way of logic and reason.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, it should be acknowledged that no embryos donated to stem cell research are expected to yield a human life. Technically, it is true that these embryos have potential to produce life. However, once an embryo is given away for the purpose of research, the intent, and thus the potential, for producing life is lost. This may seem cold or indifferent, but consider the alternatives. Would it be more ethical for another woman to give life to one of these embryos donated for science? If a child is never expected to be produced from a donated embryo, all fear of "destroying life" should be null and void.
Still, the potential for stem cell research should not be taken as a promise. Whenever stem cell research is discussed, it is often glorified. After reading the article "Concise Review: Scientific and Ethical Roadblocks to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy" by Gruen and Grabel, I have to admit I was taken aback. I have never previously read an article that mentioned the risk of tumor formation as a side effect to stem cell therapy. One fairly unknown ethical issue is providing a therapy that may produce a new serious medical problem. I feel as though this issue should be a larger focus of the controversy at hand.
I feel as though the ethical issues revolving around stem cell therapy have taken disproportionate precedence over the possible medical benefits the therapy could soon provide in clinical settings. Among those who are against the therapy, it seems that there is a large proportion of the population that mistakenly believe the only way to retrieve stem cells is by way of embryonic means, which as we just reviewed in class, is actually not the case. If these individuals took the time to diligently research the therapy and the mechanisms behind it, they might find that the other forms of stem cells are acceptable for use in the lab and, eventually, in the realm of medicine.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the dominant association made with the mention of stem cell therapy is the manipulation of embryos, which is a legitimate but not completely informed concern. It would be interesting to do a study on this population, holding an informational session regarding stem cell therapy, the mechanisms behind it, and the various stem cells that can be used. Recording the opinions of the study population concerning stem cell therapy before and after the educational session might uncover that some views have been changed in light of being introduced to the whole picture.
Certainly, other concerns should be addressed about the less-than-ideal experimental outcomes that have occurred thus far, as Jessica just mentioned in her discussion of the observed side effect of tumor formation in past research. Concerns such as these are currently a serious reality, and only with further research can the therapy be perfected to ensure that the therapy does good, and good only.
I think the ongoing research into iPS stem cells is very important to the stem cell debate. As we discussed in class, when stem cells are mentioned, most people immediately think of embryonic stem cells which raises many ethical issues. iPS stem cells are an alternative to embryonic stem cells which circumvent the controversy that follows embryonic stem cells. Because iPS stem cell research avoids the controversy, it gives scientists the opportunity to continue their stem cell research without the limitations that the United States has put on embryonic stem cell use.
ReplyDeleteAlthough iPS stem cell research is a good alternative to embryonic stem cells, it is important to remember that there are some drawbacks to using iPS. The main drawback is how new the technology is. iPS stem cells were only discovered in 2007. Because of the newness, the overall effect and value of iPS stem cells on research is not truly known. I think that much more research needs to be done on iPS cells to learn about all of the things that could potentially go wrong, like the deletion or amplification of certain DNA strands that could have very harmful effects of humans.
Conducting stem cell research has the potential to be extremely beneficial to future generations because it can help prolong their vitality. By enabling future generations to live longer, their lives will be seemingly more fulfilling. While on the surface stem cell research appears to be a great advancement in medicine, I also believe that it has the potential to mask other issues such as lifestyle habits that need to be addressed before a patient can receive an organ made from stem cells. A vast range of Americans suffer from health complications such as hypertension, high cholesterol, and various other cardiopulmonary problems due to their bad habits, like smoking, eating a poor diet, and not exercising. By having the option of replacing organs that people abuse with these new ones created by stem cell research is not very ethical. In a sense I feel like people would be inclined to saying it is okay to ruin your organs because you can always get another one. I’m not saying that stem cell research is a completely bad idea; I just believe their needs to be an extensive plan on how to execute stem cell transplant therapies. In other words I don’t think it would be a good idea to give an individual a stem cell transplant without actually working towards maintaining his or her own health prior to looking for an instant fix with a new organ.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to this issue, I can’t help but wonder if stem cell research will impact the average lifespan of adults, causing the margin of elders to grow at steeper rate than in previous generations. By increasing the life span of adults also makes me wonder what other type of health implications may be added to the repertoire of typical degenerative diseases and disorders that may affect the subsequent populations.
I believe the use of iPS stem cells is beneficial because it allows research to take place, while also avoiding the controversy associated with ethics. However, as we progress with the stem cell revolution, I think it is necessary that we also take into account other types of stem cells. By doing so, researches may find that one type of stem cell is more beneficial for treating a certain disease/health problem. This could lead to more specialized care, and ultimately an increase in health outcomes.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, although there has been little findings thus far, I believe that research on stem cells should continue, as we are still at the beginning stages. As time progresses with the use of new technologies, I believe that we will find an overwhelming amount of results that could lead to treatments or preventative measures.
Nonetheless, I must agree with t.burks in her comment. Stem cells do not take into account behaviors, and thus cannot act as a sole treatment or preventative measure. However, I believe with the use of stem cells, the biological aspect of disease will become better understood. Also, by combining stem cells with behavior changes, the ultimate goal of better health will be achieved.
I believe that the research is a good idea to have and it should continue but with this stem cell issue hovering over it, granted it wont be going down the path of embryonic stem cell research and it can avoid this issue and all that comes with it, conflict anc such, but it will most definitly stumble across its own issues somewhere down the line. But until then, I believe that the research is a good idea. I feel that the healthcare providers must be ready for what will come of it though. Like T.Burks and Miranda said before me, with this research, will the health of adults be prolonged and will the age and wellbeing of the elderly be prolonged? Will healthcare providers know what to do with the rising number of individuals? Will the accessability to healthcare change in underprivalaged areas? Will more people have the proper materials for their health? What exactly will this research do for the population as a whole is still my lingering question.
ReplyDeleteIps stem cells are a great way to avoid some of the ethical dilemmas in today when it comes to stem cells. With IPS stem cells no fetuses will be harmed and that is the main problem with stem cells. We should definitely continue this path of research even if it is in a very early stage. Those who have incurable diseases may be able to finally stop hoping for a cure and at last receive one. Some of the ethical issues in with IPS stem cells are that no one really knows what will happen once these stem cells get into the body. They may replace the cells that scientists want them to, or they could potentially create a tumor; there is no guarantee yet that scientists can make the stem cells do as they wish. No one wants to be a guinea pig in this experiment but we will need some eventually.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that we would harm future generations if we had the ban on stem cell research removed. The more that we can learn from stem cells the more we can help those who need it. The promises for cures in stem cell research have been great, but that is what to be expected with this type of research. The possibilities that could come from this research are unknown but we should absolutely continue with this research. Diseases that involve decaying or withering of organs or body parts could receive benefits from stem cell research. For example a liver can regenerate cells but only to a point, if we could have stem cells adapt to become liver cells then our livers could always ready to pump out all those toxins.
I think unlike any other issue in genomics, the root of the issue in stem cell research is part of a larger moral and ethical debate going on how human rights and autonomy fit in with scientific research. The main underlying ethical debates are centralized around the issue of to do no harm, and are framed within the theory of Utilitarianism, with influences from religion.
ReplyDeleteIn one view, utilitarian theory would say that the potential cures and treatments that could outweigh the loss of a smaller amount of embryos. However, in contrast, religion and the principle of autonomy and beneficence, scientists cannot rely on strength in numbers. Overall, I would side with those who believe in utilitarianism, because I think that there is such potential for numerous cures and treatments for many of the world's most complex diseases.
At this point, one might want to consider what would have happened if the human genome project was started in its early stages because of the cumbersome nature of the their scientific endeavor. So overall, don't stop now!
I think that stem cell research is going to bring about many opportunities and incredible discoveries in the health care field. I also believe, as stated by other students, that using iPS cells instead of embryonic stem cells avoids controversy. However, controversy may still come about if the lay public is unaware that there are three different types of stem cells such as embryonic, iPS, and adult stem cells. If the public is not aware of this, then controversies could arise.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, stem cell research and innovation can lead to such great things in people’s lives, it also could lead to some major problems. For instance, during the formation of stem cells into specialized cells could lead to cancers or tumors in other parts of the body. This is because there is a lot of room for error. Thus, a lot of research is needed to look for the errors that may come about and maybe sometime in the future they could control or eliminate this error. Stem cell research has the potential to be amazing after a great deal of research has been done.
Although we may be avoiding controversy by using other methods of stem cell research as opposed to embryonic stem cells, I think we should remain on this path of perfecting the procedure. Like other treatments performed in the healthcare field, there's more than one way of doing things, and the ethical issues of ES cells won't be resolved anytime soon. Even though iPS cells are relatively new, they have already shown to be saving lives. Freshman year, I took a class called "Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine." I did a project on how iPS cells can be extracted from a person's thigh, and placed into their damaged heart after they've had a myocardial infarction (the same thing we learnt from the guest speaker today) and the cells repair the damaged tissue areas. Many people had received the surgery without complications, and will live a lot longer with their healthier hearts. If researchers can find more ways in which these stem cells can regenerative in people's organs, this could lead to a whole new technique of treating people. Even though there's the possibility of mutations and errors, this is all the more reason to continuing researching iPS cells.
ReplyDeleteControversy is definitely avoided by using a method to utilize stem cells that avoids killing embryos. The major argument against stem cell research was a question of ethics; some considered destroying an embryo to obtain these embryonic stem cells destroying a potential life. Now, though, if we are able to utilize any cell, specifically a stem cell in the case of Shinya Yamanaka, as a stem cell we can reap the benefits of such research without ethical controversy. These cells can be used to make any kind of cell in the body, just as an embryonic stem cell is. The progress utilizing this science may allow in the field of medicine and disease is unimaginable.
ReplyDeleteDue to the incredible potential stem cell research possesses, I believe that we should continue to perfect this procedure. It was just discovered in 2007 according to the article, which is incredibly recent. There has not been enough research and development of the procedure to grasp its full potential. I think it should be expected that there would be difficulties with any new technology in the beginning stages. However, researches can learn more about the cells and perfect the science as more time elapses, so someday these cells could even generate new, fully functioning organs and treat innumerable diseases. I think that research has progressed incredibly far already, and if researchers are allowed to continue what they are doing there will be even greater discoveries in the future. Allowing research to be focused on stem cells will help future generations. Although we may have high hopes for stem cells, it would be obtuse to ignore the potential and not allow the field to thrive.
The comment made in class regarding stem cell therapies in the Caribbean really made me ponder the significant ethical issues that go along with it. People who are extremely ill seek foreign treatment because they may be desperate and have tried all other existing therapies in the US, but to no avail. Although these patients may regard their treatments overseas as a last hope, or a last option, it is important to realize that these practices are often fraudulent and dangerous. It is simply unethical to charge over-priced fees for therapies that are experimental and not yet proven to be safe or effective by properly conducted clinical trials. This completely violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence: to do no harm. The unregulated form of stem cell therapy that occurs abroad can actually directly place the patient in harm’s way since the risks of treatment are often not fully known, and the benefits may be unlikely. How ought bioethicists, clinicians, and scientists deal with patients who have decided to risk themselves under these circumstances? It seems that in these desperate cases, the power of hope can often surpass the power of research and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe comment made in class regarding stem cell therapies in the Caribbean really made me ponder the significant ethical issues that go along with it. People who are extremely ill seek foreign treatment because they may be desperate and have tried all other existing therapies in the US, but to no avail. Although these patients may regard their treatments overseas as a last hope, or a last option, it is important to realize that these practices are often fraudulent and dangerous. It is simply unethical to charge over-priced fees for therapies that are experimental and not yet proven to be safe or effective by properly conducted clinical trials. This completely violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence: to do no harm. The unregulated form of stem cell therapy that occurs abroad can actually directly place the patient in harm’s way since the risks of treatment are often not fully known, and the benefits may be unlikely. How ought bioethicists, clinicians, and scientists deal with patients who have decided to risk themselves under these circumstances? It seems that in these desperate cases, the power of hope can often surpass the power of research and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe comment made in class regarding stem cell therapies in the Caribbean really made me ponder the significant ethical issues that go along with it. People who are extremely ill seek foreign treatment because they may be desperate and have tried all other existing therapies in the US, but to no avail. Although these patients may regard their treatments overseas as a last hope, or a last option, it is important to realize that these practices are often fraudulent and dangerous. It is simply unethical to charge over-priced fees for therapies that are experimental and not yet proven to be safe or effective by properly conducted clinical trials. This completely violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence: to do no harm. The unregulated form of stem cell therapy that occurs abroad can actually directly place the patient in harm’s way since the risks of treatment are often not fully known, and the benefits may be unlikely. How ought bioethicists, clinicians, and scientists deal with patients who have decided to risk themselves under these circumstances? It seems that in these desperate cases, the power of hope can often surpass the power of research and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe comment made in class regarding stem cell therapies in the Caribbean really made me ponder the significant ethical issues that go along with it. People who are extremely ill seek foreign treatment because they may be desperate and have tried all other existing therapies in the US, but to no avail. Although these patients may regard their treatments overseas as a last hope, or a last option, it is important to realize that these practices are often fraudulent and dangerous. It is simply unethical to charge over-priced fees for therapies that are experimental and not yet proven to be safe or effective by properly conducted clinical trials. This completely violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence: to do no harm. The unregulated form of stem cell therapy that occurs abroad can actually directly place the patient in harm’s way since the risks of treatment are often not fully known, and the benefits may be unlikely. How ought bioethicists, clinicians, and scientists deal with patients who have decided to risk themselves under these circumstances? It seems that in these desperate cases, the power of hope can often surpass the power of research and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe comment made in class regarding stem cell therapies in the Caribbean really made me ponder the significant ethical issues that go along with it. People who are extremely ill seek foreign treatment because they may be desperate and have tried all other existing therapies in the US, but to no avail. Although these patients may regard their treatments overseas as a last hope, or a last option, it is important to realize that these practices are often fraudulent and dangerous. It is simply unethical to charge over-priced fees for therapies that are experimental and not yet proven to be safe or effective by properly conducted clinical trials. This completely violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence: to do no harm. The unregulated form of stem cell therapy that occurs abroad can actually directly place the patient in harm’s way since the risks of treatment are often not fully known, and the benefits may be unlikely. How ought bioethicists, clinicians, and scientists deal with patients who have decided to risk themselves under these circumstances? It seems that in these desperate cases, the power of hope can often surpass the power of research and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe comment made in class regarding stem cell therapies in the Caribbean really made me ponder the significant ethical issues that go along with it. People who are extremely ill seek foreign treatment because they may be desperate and have tried all other existing therapies in the US, but to no avail. Although these patients may regard their treatments overseas as a last hope, or a last option, it is important to realize that these practices are often fraudulent and dangerous. It is simply unethical to charge over-priced fees for therapies that are experimental and not yet proven to be safe or effective by properly conducted clinical trials. This completely violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence: to do no harm. The unregulated form of stem cell therapy that occurs abroad can actually directly place the patient in harm’s way since the risks of treatment are often not fully known, and the benefits may be unlikely. How ought bioethicists, clinicians, and scientists deal with patients who have decided to risk themselves under these circumstances? It seems that in these desperate cases, the power of hope can often surpass the power of research and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe comment made in class regarding stem cell therapies in the Caribbean really made me ponder the significant ethical issues that go along with it. People who are extremely ill seek foreign treatment because they may be desperate and have tried all other existing therapies in the US, but to no avail. Although these patients may regard their treatments overseas as a last hope, or a last option, it is important to realize that these practices are often fraudulent and dangerous. It is simply unethical to charge over-priced fees for therapies that are experimental and not yet proven to be safe or effective by properly conducted clinical trials. This completely violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence: to do no harm. The unregulated form of stem cell therapy that occurs abroad can actually directly place the patient in harm’s way since the risks of treatment are often not fully known, and the benefits may be unlikely. How ought bioethicists, clinicians, and scientists deal with patients who have decided to risk themselves under these circumstances? It seems that in these desperate cases, the power of hope can often surpass the power of research and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe comment made in class regarding stem cell therapies in the Caribbean really made me ponder the significant ethical issues that go along with it. People who are extremely ill seek foreign treatment because they may be desperate and have tried all other existing therapies in the US, but to no avail. Although these patients may regard their treatments overseas as a last hope, or a last option, it is important to realize that these practices are often fraudulent and dangerous. It is simply unethical to charge over-priced fees for therapies that are experimental and not yet proven to be safe or effective by properly conducted clinical trials. This completely violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence: to do no harm. The unregulated form of stem cell therapy that occurs abroad can actually directly place the patient in harm’s way since the risks of treatment are often not fully known, and the benefits may be unlikely. How ought bioethicists, clinicians, and scientists deal with patients who have decided to risk themselves under these circumstances? It seems that in these desperate cases, the power of hope can often surpass the power of research and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI think that we certainly do avoid the debate of killing an embryo when we turn to tissue-specific (adult) stem cells as well as iPS cells. Of course as our guest lecturer mentioned, this does nto mean that we will be cloning humans any time soon or that these clones end up functioning like us. But if we can use iPS cells and recreate diseases in petri dishes and use them to figure out cures to diseases, this would be crucial to many people who carry those diseases. It is understandable why people may have issues with using embryonic cells, but I do not see an issue with using either adult cells or iPS cells that can turn into many different cells within the body (given the right atmosphere and factors).
ReplyDeleteI think that the process of finding cures may have seemed slow thus far, but now that we are turning to iPS cells, things should speed up once we get the hang of them. As the guest speaker said, it may be a while before we can help those individuals with diseases that have mutations in multiple genes, but I think that we can start with the single-gene mutation diseases and go from there. I think that we definitely should press on with stem cells. Some examples of why we should continue with stem cells are that patients with multiple sclerosis show great improvements when stem cells are implanted into their body. Moreover, it is amazing that an individual can use his/her own stem cells and put them into the heart for example, to correct the damages done by a former heart attack. With stem cell research, there is a lot of room for improvement with is great because with that there is also the ability to learn. I think that if we continue to research and improve the uses of stem cells, it will be of great significance to humans. Although we may never be able to clone another human, I think the more important aspect is being able to provide the cells that will eventually become new organs that people will be able to have transplanted to them, providing for a longer life. The fact that Johns Hopkins was able to use a heart, drain it of old cells, and put stem cells in and make the heart work, is absolutely incredible to me.
I agree with previous comments like J. Sidberry that stem cell research has the potential to be one of the biggest breakthroughs in modern medicine, and could lead to a better understanding of a variety of diseases and even cures. I also find it very understandable that using embryonic stem cells poses a controversy, which is why I think using iPS cells are definitely the best direction to go in. They avoid the major ethical concerns of ES cells, and make me question what the real controversy even is about if research focuses on iPS cells. Many commenters mentioned that iPS still raises controversial concerns, but what specific concerns? If cells taken from the skin could generate cures for potentially many diseases I'm not sure what the real ethical dilemma would be. Although the technology is not ready to use clinically, this is a very new science. As Dr. Buac talked about in class the discovery of iPS cells was made in 2006, and in just a few short years over 100 types of iPS cells have been isolated - this is proof enough for me that this has a lot more potential for growth quickly if its research is invested in.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with T. Contreras that unaccredited research that essentially exploits the hopes of people with as of now incurable diseases is completely unethical, and I find the fact that this happens somewhat upsetting. I think the scientific community should make efforts to clarify to the public what is and what is not current knowledge about stem cell research, and should be careful not to publish overly optimistic statements to the public too soon.
Echoing pretty much everyone else's comments, I think that the use of iPS cells rather than embryonic stem cells will certainly help to reduce the controversy surrounding stem cells. As pointed out in the Guardian article, the procedure is still far from perfect--iPS cells were first discovered/induced only a few years ago--and it is not uncommon for mutations to occur. However, stem cell science as a whole is still far from perfect, so it'll take some time to make the use of stem cell therapy widespread and more efficient.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the question of whether stem cells are/can live up to their expectations, I think that too much stock was placed in stem cells too early. While stem cells have already been shown to work remarkably well in regrowing heart tissue, skin, and pancreatic islet cells to name a few, I think that many people got caught up in the promise of stem cells and neglected to consider the realities of any scientific research, specifically that a lot of time and money are required to make progress. I think that allowing more time and money to be spent on stem cell research is definitely a good thing, especially now that we are seeing results of successful stem cell therapy.
It is evident that researchers have avoided the controversy around stem cell research by discovering the iPS cell. As a result of the controversy that is a result of it, scientists in the US at least, have not been able to receive much funding for further research for the embryonic cells and due to the great debate over such issues such as abortion, scientists are in a way forced to find a new direction for stem cell research. iPS stem cells, even in its early stages of its discovery, have become extremely promising to replace embryonic cells because of its great abundance and has been able to act in the same manner as embryonic stem cells. As a result of this, there should be no doubt to continue the research in perfecting the iPS stem cells so that we can reap the potential benefits of these cells.
ReplyDeleteI do not think focusing more on stem cell research could possibly harm future generations, granted there has been much debate on how possibly valuable stem cell research can be, but I do not see how research could harm them. Of course there is a chance that all the energy and research scientists are putting into these stem cells can be for nothing, and we find that stem cells are inefficient but scientists place that risk with any research that is done. As of now, stem cells have been successful in replacing bone marrow cells for cancer treatment and there are numerous other potential treatments that are currently being studied to assess the benefits. Focusing on stem cell research is beneficial because it has the potential of becoming a great benefit for future generations.
I think that the whole idea of using stem cells in research and have it open many other doors in our scientific fields today is a great idea and I never really agreed with any of the intense controversies that were going on around this topic, even though only some were a bit understandable. Anyway, if in order to keep growing in the field of stem cell research we had to come up with another technique in order to avoid the controversies around the embryonic cell dilemma then so be it. I think IPS is a great way to keep going with the idea of stem cell research and furthering our work with these will only open more opportunities for cures, production of organs, etc. As we know this IPS idea is still fairly new and there are mutations that can still occur but when it comes to any type of scientific advancement and other research there are still always many types of risks and in this case mutations is one of them. I do not think we should stop using this method because of the possible mutations that can occur. We have already been able to work around the whole controversy of stem cell research by using IPS I think that with time we will also be able to work around the mutation problem as more advancements occur.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone’s statements that iPS was created to avoid controversy since embryos are not involved. We should avoid the ethical issue of destroying an embryo because it is a circular argument that brings up moral status of embryo, abortion issue, threshold for life, etc. Like Devyn said, there are endless potential cures and treatments via stem cell use and it is difficult to pass up such a promising future for paralysis, diabetes, etc. If we can stop these diseases, there is no need for certain medication. Benefits are so great, we should not impede this process nor limit the researchers. Likewise, perhaps the use of stem cells can minimize “stem cell tourism” which is not regulated or monitored like a black market. What can go wrong in these situations? Stems could grow and become cancerous or there could be infected c ells that cause viruses or just simply not work. However, the use of stem cells can affect insurance policy, already existing health disparities, access, etc. negatively. The public understanding and emotions of the issue will hinder the potential medical advancements in the future because the underlying ethical debate is revolved around human rights and autonomy in respects scientific research.
ReplyDeleteIPS cells don’t come from the womb, therefore this avoids the controversy that arises from the use of embryonic stem cells. The ethics of stem cell research have always has always been the issue that hinders successful stem cell treatments. We can’t limit our researchers in the US because there is so much potential in stem cell use: one cell can regenerate into different organs, tissues, etc. Like the article, the more liberal rules in UK and Sweden have allowed for promising results. Stem cell use can cure a variety of diseases like Parkinson’s, diabetes, paralysis, and to limit that potential seems like a waste of resources. By curing these conditions we also limit the number of medications individuals need to be taking, therefore, create healthier lifestyles. We cannot compromise the potential for human life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone’s statements that iPS was created to avoid controversy since embryos are not involved. We should avoid the ethical issue of destroying an embryo because it is a circular argument that brings up moral status of embryo, abortion issue, threshold for life, etc. Like Devyn said, there are endless potential cures and treatments via stem cell use and it is difficult to pass up such a promising future for paralysis, diabetes, etc. If we can stop these diseases, there is no need for certain medication. Benefits are so great, we should not impede this process nor limit the researchers. Likewise, perhaps the use of stem cells can minimize “stem cell tourism” which is not regulated or monitored like a black market. What can go wrong in these situations? Stems could grow and become cancerous or there could be infected c ells that cause viruses or just simply not work. However, the use of stem cells can affect insurance policy, already existing health disparities, access, etc. negatively. The public understanding and emotions of the issue will hinder the potential medical advancements in the future because the underlying ethical debate is revolved around human rights and autonomy in respects scientific research.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the posts above which states that the use of iPS cells will help to avoid controversy associated with embryonic stem cells. iPS cells are created from grafted skin cells of a person and contain the same genome as the source, therefore not being invasive as taking an embryo and harvesting its cells. Although there are mutations and other current problems in the procedure I feel that with time these can be corrected and that we should definitely invest time and money into exploring the uses of these cells. With the ethical argument of hurting the embryo out of the way, the government and even private companies can finally help to solve a variety of diseases that may have been limited by the ethical component. However, these cells cannot fully replace embryonic stem cells because if the disease is genetically linked, the iPS cells will not help to relieve the problem as they have the same genome as the source and will also have the mutated gene(s). In this case, some people may feel discriminated from treatment due to their genealogical make up (which they cannot control). I believe that by allowing more research we are definitely helping future generations. With the help of stem cells we can look at how drugs affect our bodies, create new organs for transplants, and even help to replace damaged cells by helping eliminate diseases. These practices will increase the livelihood of the future generations. I don’t think that we have been promised too many cures in recent years because the concept of use stem cells is very complicated and I understand that it takes time to test and even implement the treatments. Just having the potential of these diseases to accomplish this feat is amazing in and of itself. For example, bone marrow transplants have helped with blood cancers and disorders and research has even produced whole organs which may one day be transplanted into humans.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe controversy can entirely be avoided with the use of iPS cells, because with any developing field of research there will be debate concerning its potential, its direction, the ethical problems, and such. Despite controversy, research should continue because the potential benefits that have yet to be found or new paths of research that comes as a result of this research surely outweighs the potential costs. There are definitely fewer ethical issues when using this procedure compared to ES cells, but it’s the potential of harm that might be really pulling people back from supporting the research. But, again, without research it is too preliminary to hold back research. Just as there is potential for harm, there is also potential to help future generations. Although there have been too many promises with stem cell research, I believe most people are skeptical enough to question the likelihood of most promises. Again, there is too much misinformation and media hype that has led people on and many might already be weary of the suggestive information being put out. But the incremental successes, such as those seen with iPS cells in motor neuron diseases, juvenile diabetes, and sickle cell anemia, proves that the potential of stem cell is very valuable and worth the time and financial investments.
ReplyDeleteWhile iPS cells help to avoid ethical concerns over stem cell use, there is still much political debate over the research simply because it involves stem cells. Most of the general public is not able to have specific education on stem cells like we have had, and thus does not realize the differences between the different types of stem cells. It seems as though merely mentioning the term stem cells in the political arena is cause for great concern among the American public. Though, as the article states, “iPS cells remove the ethical roadblock faced by embryonic stem cells.” I think research should be done using iPS stem cells because they provide enormous potential for future medical treatments. With iPS cells there is possibility to help treat a vast array of diseases without the need to destroy embryos. The purpose of research is to help people, and without experimentation of iPS cells we are not achieving the full scientific potential that could be available.
ReplyDeleteAs our guest speaker said on Thursday, stem cell research is not perfect, but it does hold constant promise for the evolution of medical treatment. The article reminds us that it is important to note “for a field that is barely a few years old, the remarkable pace of achievement should give plenty of hope that these challenges will be met. With more research being done in the stem cell field, I think iPS cells will help alleviate some of the controversy that currently stifles research in the United States. In looking at other countries such as the UK and Sweden, who have extremely liberal regulations on the use of stem cells, it is interesting to see how each nation’s government determines the ethical concerns. Politics play a huge role in governing scientific research and it will be interesting to watch how much the United States becomes involved in the field of stem cell research in the future.
Alok Jha’s article, Look, no embryos! The future of ethical stem cells discusses new advances that scientists have made in order to study and work with stem cells while “keeping it ethical
ReplyDelete--in some eyes. Embryos are no longer being destroyed, but some still may find this wrong. I think now that this key issue is no longer at hand, scientists should be able to use this method without causing controversy amongst others. The United States should follow the United Kingdom’s relatively civil laws—the government passed strict, but fair, laws that allowed ES research to continue.
I think if the United States allows stem cell research, we would be helping future generations. The creation of iPS cells will allow scientists to watch which genes go wrong in a variety of condition and how and when exactly this occurs in order to fully understand and hopefully be able to stop disease in their tracks. Also, just like any other discovery, on any level, the initial finding will eventually change into something similar, or at times completely different, because as we learn new information, it will change our perception and findings about our discovery. Stem cell research is still a recent discovery (with such strict laws, we haven’t been able to make as many advances as possible) therefore I think we still have to give it some time to really fully understand the science more. Cures have been promised (similar: the Human Genome Project) but we have to be patient and understand there is a more complex design to all of this and soon (with more knowledge) more foolproof results will appear.
I think that using iPS stem cells is a good idea. Using a method like this that takes a lot more work to perfect might have been silly if stem cell research weren’t so controversial. However, its critics have been actively hindering progress, like George Bush with the ban on federal spending. At least with iPS, something is being done to keep the research going. There are always going to be people who have ethical problems with these kinds of projects, but I think that most people would probably agree that any problems with the artificiality of iPS stem cells are still less ethically questionable than killing embryonic stem cells.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that stem cell research should continue, and I can see it being very beneficial for future generations. I am not bothered by the small amount of tangible results in recent years. Stem cell research is a complicated topic with so many possibilities, and we have really only scratched the surface of it. This research would be a long-term investment.
With any highly controversial topic, I think it is important to get “back to basics.” Simply, research is a search for knowledge through investigation using a particular method. These methods either advance us or delay us in discovering and interpreting novel ideas. In either instance, we learn something about our approach that can be included/discarded for next time, and that is something to be thankful for. Though stem cell research may be the most provocatively and uncomfortably controversial research at the moment, I do not find its process much different from any other research. We research because, at some point, we were made aware of conflicting ideas/ideals and want to advance the direction of our curiosities in a more unified way. When we (as scientists) are challenged, as in the embryonic stem cell debate, we are motivated (by intrigue or force) to invent new methodologies and to remap our reasoning. Challenge is the catalyst of research; challenge in research makes practical applications possible.
ReplyDeleteThat said, practical applications are not accepted without trust of the consumer or voter. Trust is gained through knowledge. Social science would say that bad news – news of failure – travels faster than good news. If people knew more about the progresses and benefits of varying kinds of stem cell research, they would undoubtedly be more understanding, if not more accepting. I do believe that our excitement has led to over-promising. Personally, I think it is better to under-promise and over-deliver. Right now, stem cell science has endless potential and I think we will over-deliver. To correct for over-promising in the meantime, we can make the argument that no research is perfect – from mutations to human error, the only certainty is some sort of uncertainty. This should be reason to motivate us to continue. I believe that stem cell research is the future of medicine and we would be doing research relative to stem cell research’s aims a disservice by failing to pursue it further.
With any highly controversial topic, I think it is important to get “back to basics.” Simply, research is a search for knowledge through investigation using a particular method. These methods either advance us or delay us in discovering and interpreting novel ideas. In either instance, we learn something about our approach that can be included/discarded for next time, and that is something to be thankful for. Though stem cell research may be the most provocatively and uncomfortably controversial research at the moment, I do not find its process much different from any other research. We research because, at some point, we were made aware of conflicting ideas/ideals and want to advance the direction of our curiosities in a more unified way. When we (as scientists) are challenged, as in the embryonic stem cell debate, we are motivated (by intrigue or force) to invent new methodologies and to remap our reasoning. Challenge is the catalyst of research; challenge in research makes practical applications possible.
ReplyDeleteThat said, practical applications are not accepted without trust of the consumer or voter. Trust is gained through knowledge. Social science would say that bad news – news of failure – travels faster than good news. If people knew more about the progresses and benefits of varying kinds of stem cell research, they would undoubtedly be more understanding, if not more accepting. I do believe that our excitement has led to over-promising. Personally, I think it is better to under-promise and over-deliver. Right now, stem cell science has endless potential and I think we will over-deliver. To correct for over-promising in the meantime, we can make the argument that no research is perfect – from mutations to human error, the only certainty is some sort of uncertainty. This should be reason to motivate us to continue. I believe that stem cell research is the future of medicine and we would be doing research relative to stem cell research’s aims a disservice by failing to pursue it further.
With any highly controversial topic, I think it is important to get “back to basics.” Simply, research is a search for knowledge through investigation using a particular method. These methods either advance us or delay us in discovering and interpreting novel ideas. In either instance, we learn something about our approach that can be included/discarded for next time, and that is something to be thankful for. Though stem cell research may be the most provocatively and uncomfortably controversial research at the moment, I do not find its process much different from any other research. We research because, at some point, we were made aware of conflicting ideas/ideals and want to advance the direction of our curiosities in a more unified way. When we (as scientists) are challenged, as in the embryonic stem cell debate, we are motivated (by intrigue or force) to invent new methodologies and to remap our reasoning. Challenge is the catalyst of research; challenge in research makes practical applications possible.
ReplyDeleteThat said, practical applications are not accepted without trust of the consumer or voter. Trust is gained through knowledge. Social science would say that bad news – news of failure – travels faster than good news. If people knew more about the progresses and benefits of varying kinds of stem cell research, they would undoubtedly be more understanding, if not more accepting. I do believe that our excitement has led to over-promising. Personally, I think it is better to under-promise and over-deliver. Right now, stem cell science has endless potential and I think we will over-deliver. To correct for over-promising in the meantime, we can make the argument that no research is perfect – from mutations to human error, the only certainty is some sort of uncertainty. This should be reason to motivate us to continue. I believe that stem cell research is the future of medicine and we would be doing research relative to stem cell research’s aims a disservice by failing to pursue it further.
I think that using iPS stem cells is a really good way for scientist to develop alternative methods of research for stem cells that are less controversial. However, I also believe that eventually the need for scientists to use embryonic stem cells will occur. In order for scientists to make necessary medical discoveries, they need to actually know the potential side effects and the symptoms the stem cells will have on humans. I don't see how this can fully be done without the use of human embryonic stem cells.
ReplyDeletePatients who discard fertilized eggs, such as IVF patients should be more inclined to donate those cells to science. Rather than throw out something that could potentially help rid the world of cancer, these cells should be used to help facilitate medical advancements that will in theory help keep all of us (our children, our grandchildren, etc) alive . I think better ways of marketing research for stem cells needs to be implemented so people will look beyond the simple fact that the extraction of ESC destroys embryos. Additionally, there is always a huge line separating science, religion, and politics; however I do believe that the need for medical advancements will eventually trump the controversy over ESC. Despite the small number of successes that stem cells have made, I think research should definitely be funded by the government so as to ensure better outcomes in the future. It's an uphill battle with this debate, but I believe the need will help garner support for stem cell research in general. The promises and hope stem cells have provided for the future of medicine and health is remarkable and personally I look forward to being a strong advocate for its support in the future.
Stem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research, and studying them can help us understand how they transform into the array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. As mentioned in class, medical benefits in areas of regenerative medicine and therapeutic cloning. Stem cells provide huge potential for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of diseases including different cancers, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, MS, Huntingtons, and Parkinson. There is endless potential for scientists to learn about human growth and cell development from studying stem cell. So why limit it?
ReplyDeleteUse of embryonic stem cells for reasearch involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized human eggs. For those who believe that life begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human life and to destroy it is unacceptable and immoral. This is what makes this issue so controversial in the U.S.
I think that one's standpoint on whether or not stem cell research is ethical or unethical has a lot to do with a variety of peeoples views of other major contraversial subjects. For example, when does human life begin... at conception? at birth? Also, one's beliefs of whether it ismoral to sacrifice some to help many more. It would really depend on whether you have a deontological approach or utilitarian approach to these issues. I think that finding less controversial ways would be a definite positive strategy to this science but i think that people who disagree with it will find ways to make it continue to be controversial. Such a task of making this research ethically moral in the eyes of the majority of americans will be a tough one. Just like the debate on abortion, i don't see a conceptualized idea of morality being made any time soon on stem cell research in the U.S.
For years now there has been controversial issues surrounding stem cells. The main reason is because of the ethics concerning destroying human embryos in order to get the most versatile stem cells. So when the discovery of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells was made scientists thought they took a step closer to advancing the medical world. These iPS cells are so remarkable because they do not destroy embryos. I think it is essential that we use this advancement to its fullest. This is the next stage in science and it would be wrong if we ignore this discovery made by Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University in Japan. The reason why there has been continuous ethical debate on stem cells is because embryos were being killed in the process, and now iPS cells avoids that issue. Although iPS cells seem great there is a risk for tumor formation after their transplantation. This leads to people being hesitant to use iPS cells, and so it is necessary for there to be more research done on iPS cells to correct this problem. Scientists should continue with research on stem cells until there is a solution found that is free of any ethical concerns.
ReplyDeleteI believe that using the i PS cells would eliminate many ethical issues with stem cells. As others have noted these cells do not come from the destruction of embryos. PErsonally, I find it hard to believe that the world will ever come to an agreement on the use of stem cells. Stem cell research has been turned into a religous and ethical debate when it should really be considered for its medical and scientific use. I do not believe that stem cells should not be used because of these reasons. Diseases such as Parkinson's diseas, cancers, Alzheimer's, ect the list goes on and on. Stem cells are what we need to advance our research in these areas. People need to stop looking at stem cells as an individual view and more as a view from society as a whole and the greater benefits it could have on the human race. iPS cells are a step in the right direction to better settle this ongoing dispute between differernt religions, different peoples on the subject of stem cells. Somewhere along the way we lost the point that stem cells are a way to better humanity. Nobody is going to live forever or have their individual thoughts expressed by governmental policies. We need to realize that we need to put the greater need of humanity above our own selfish beliefs. There has recently been discoveries in the stem cells of umbilical cords urging mothers to keep these cells for the later treatment of disease if it should so develop. We need to urge public policy and agreement on the ideas/use of stem cells immediately to be able to use the potentially amazing benefits of these cells.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous comments that using iPS is helping to remove controversy. According to the article, “Look, no embryos!” the author, Jha, states that iPS help to remove the ethical roadblocks faced by embryonic stem cells by giving scientists an inexhaustible supply of material, they are easy to make, and provide an attainable goal to reaching previously thought out treatments. I think that it is imperative to continue research in regards to iPS to avoid further controversial debate in regards to the ethical debate over destroying an embryo, including but not limited to those in favor of prolife versus prochoice and informed consent. I also feel that by allowing more research focused on stem cell research, we are providing future generations with scientific and medical certainties. For instance, with further stem cell research, transplants of organs will occur more and affect a greater population instead of needing to be on a waiting list and possibly never getting a “turn” to receive a transplant. In addition, the organ will be individually, DNA and blood type specific, reducing possible infections and further complications. Along with organ transplants, stem cell therapy has been used to generate cartilage and ligaments for joint reconstruction (i.e. ACL, PCL, meniscus, etc.) Previous stem cell research has been beneficial thus far and I am incredibly interested to see the other various uses medical scientists will deduce from further research.
ReplyDelete