Stem Cells And Micheal J Fox

There are many misleading points in Micheal Fox's commercial.

See if anyone spots them.

Pist Jim you didn't provide a link, at least I couldn't find one.

--

Watch his commercial.

See if you hear anything he says is misleading.

Granted there's not a whole lot you can saying in a 30 second sound bite anyway.

But that's how the most audience gets contacted.

Jim I'm not a Doctor but I don't see how this research can help Diabetics, it's the spleen that produces to much sugar or not enough isn't it? Isn't a transplant the only cure and then the desease comes back?

There is more than one type of Diabetes. Type one is the diabetes young children get. There is a decline in beta producing cells in the islets of langehans, in the pancreas. This results in insufficient levels of insulin.

Type two is onset in adulthood, and is a result of defects in insulin production, and also a resistance by the body to it's own insulin, mostly due to the insulin receptor in cell membranes.

There have allready been studies which showed that stem cells could be used to improve the symptoms of Parkinsons by replacing the lost cells.

The pertinent information in regards to stem cells and diabetes is that in type 1 diabetes, the cells which need fixing are only one layer thick. One of the questions researchers have is how to correctly get the tissue to form, and what conditions or properties need to be accounted for in the organization of those cells.

Any scientist who is studying stem cells will tell you the reason that to date the progress has been slow. There is a need to develop more lines. A line is when the stem cells are removed and placed in a vessel, and then multiplied .

One of the lines from the bill passed in the states states that no research can take place from any human embryos which were destroyed or discarded, except those initially used to propogate the lines they use now. New technology can make more viable cultures than those early lines. But in vitro clinics are helping people to have children every day, and in the process are destroying, or discarding human embryos. I see nothing wrong with using them for research, provided the researcher has written consent from the original donors. This way there is no "paying" for embryos/eggs removed from females, contrary to those who oppose Fox's commercial will tell you.

Thanks Tonington for the explanation, I like your suggestion regarding the use of stem cells. It's ethical and honest. I've never had a problem with Stem Cell Research if it's done with proper quidelines.

Thats really the issue, there can be no issue with regards to the research if the embryos are allready made for someone who can't reproduce. It's not like we're going to outlaw that. All that is needed is proper guidelines. I don't see this at odds with current ethical standards at all.

Raging fundamentalists have skewed the real topic so badly very few people know where the real truth lies....

As I understand it and I am not an expert, many of the invitro product are going to be aged beyond use or discarded as many are harvested when only a few are used in reproduction of actual human.

However the argument these inert cells are more valuable than an existing human who is living in this world with a disease which could be cured or at least alleviated - should be denied that assistance is
a campaign of voodoo-like proportions.

Nothing is more off-the-wall to me than a group of people giving out their personal reasons why something should not be done to assist those who are condemned to die before necessary or living out a life of pain and invalidism... when science has the means of finding a way to find a promise of regaining their physically productives lives here on earth.

It isn't just Michael Fox - Christopher Reeve fought for this research - and many others we rarely hear of.
Imagine Stephen Hawking being more free to travel and visit our lecture halls to speak to all of us.

We cannot walk in their shoes and "presume" our judgments are wiser.... like condemning another to death when innocent.

As for religion - I cannot think religion wants this kind of decision - it is human interpretation which is wrong.

You are correct. The numbers needed to ensure fertilization are only a fraction of the total number of embryos created.

There will be others to try to shed light on this issue. Christopher Reeves was a great champion of this research.

I really wish that this topic could be viewed with an open mind. For those who don't allready know, stem cells are used every day from adults to help cancer patients. The marrow is extracted, stem cells removed, and then replaced back into the marrow to grow again. Very painfull process for the chemotherapy patients.

If anyone wants to look up some good research being done with stem cells, look up articles by Olle Lindvall.

That there needs to be more lines in embyro stem cells is ONLY AN ISSUE FOR RESEARCH.

What I mean by that is ADULT stem cells are helping people RIGHT NOW.

And embyro stem cell research is so NOT promising right now.

One reason is that adult stem cells are being used right now ?
It's because the doctors are using YOUR CELLS. No rejection.

That's just one reason.

Adult stem cells are FAR MORE USEFUL RIGHT NOW, and much more promising RIGHT NOW.

It's a long road from embyro stem cells being even remotely useful.

And ironicly federal funds and oversight just might hamper embryo stem cell research
as it does under EU oversight and regulation.

LIKE government involvement is the cure for everything.

In addition, have the liberals all forgotten their Frankenstein and Nazi movies lately, eh ?

ARe not embyro farms an Orwellian Kodack moment to give us pause ???

Tonington - good post!

Many people are experiencing benefits from stem cell.

I cannot in my heart believe any religion of mankind would deny another living being the chance at a productive life if it were possible by the use of cells which were destined to be flushed into our sewer
system.

It makes absolutely no sense and in a strange way makes a mockery out of the religious arguments we
hear against capital punishment for a crime, or sending military people to war to kill.

Religions screams about abortion - but will not see the error of misinterpretation in their denial of the use of science to prolong existing life...... They sanction war..... how can this be more "evil"?

Someone is going to have to make a decision soon and I hope it will not be the politicians or the religious fanatics - this one is best left up to science - and damn those who fight it...

Some misunderstandings are being perpetuated.

Embryonic Stem cells are so far less useful than Adult Stem cells right now.

Scientists believe embryonic stem cells hold great promise, except they hold no promise for now
and so the greatest advances and productive results are in ADULT STEM CELLS.

Also political ads are misleading when they make voters think a Republican is outlawing
stem cell research. This is untrue. There is no ban on PRIVATE RESEARCH at all !!!

However what kind of virtuous thinking are you showing if we do not carefully weigh
embryonic stell cells and what road that leads to, without cautious debate.

The left and the right are demonizing each other on this issue, and no one claiming moral high ground.

JimMoyer

I see my earlier post came up before yours on ADULT stem cell research....good information - thanks!

I think I need to read up more on this topic - or I am listening to the wrong people - could be both...certainly I need more input....

Will redo my head .... (in time)......

A question: I know they are saving cord blood for children at birth now - but is this a possibility for future research for others???? Or only the owner of the cord blood.

Jim Moyer,

More lines for research= more rersearch. More research=more information. More information=new promising techniques, or improvements in old ones.

Adult stem cells have been researched for more than 40 years now. They have been in use for 30 years for bone marrow transplants.

Embryonic research is quite new in comparison.

The adult stem cells work because of large doses of radiation to suppress your immune response to the stem cells. The marrow comes from donors, as your own marrow doesn't produce enough of it's own stem cells.

The reason more promising...40 years of research. See above for what new research adds to the growing body of knowledge.


Government involvement is a huge boost to finding cures. Do you know how much research money comes from governments? The top 10 universities by medical research grants from the NIH in 2004 topped $4 billion. Just imagine if some of that money could be used in legitimate stem cell research......

Political partisans are far behind the curve on Adult Stem Cells.

Adult stem cells not only shows IMMEDIATE PROMISE, it is currently being used NOW,
and literally saving lives ---- something that will take a very very long time for embryonic stem
cell research to come near.

Now the dichotomies:

So stem cell research ? You need to dilineate between ADULT or EMBRYONIC.

Stem cell research bans ? You need to dilineate the above plus whether it is PRIVATE or GOVERNMENT ?

Stem cell research ? You need to wonder whether govt dollar strings hamper a laboratory and while
you wonder that, research the rules and regs of the EU.

Hah! we're posting at the same time. You'll notice I'm not blaming left or right or middle, or up or down. This is just one of those issues I think should transcend the lines drawn in the sand, much as the climate "debate" should.

I'm not in the EU, their rules don't pertain to me.

I thought it was obvious what research I was talking about. Since you were arguing the adult uses, I was talking about embryonic, as that is what I've been talking about the whole time. Embryonic stem cells recieves no money from the federal government. I then showeed how much money is out there for research.

Making my point, open up federal research dollars to embryonic research. This will lead to more answers/techniques.

How much does the private research funds amount to?

Despite lack of taxpayer money offered with strings and committees, private research on
embyronic stem cells will always dwarf government involvement and will be more productive also.

By the time we get around to deciding how to control embyro farms
where we create life to kill it, and rules and regs on cloning experiments, the scientists
will spend half their day on just paperwork requirements.

Imagine Dr Frankenstein having to fill out forms before proceeding with any lab project ?

That oughta stifle it, Edith.

Did you even read my post with regards to stem cells from in vitro clinics? Those people are there to have a baby. I think it would be most ethical if the remaining embryos were donated to research rather than thrown away/destroyed.

Since you seem so confident, can you show me evidence that private research for stem cells is even in the vicinity of government research grants?

It has to be more productive now because as I said allready, public funds ARE NOT allowed to be used for embryonic stem cell research.

I have done research before, This summer I worked on an NSRC/IRAP grant. Most research does allready require stacks and heaps of confusing forms and paperwork.

Imagine if Dr. Frankenstein had stem cells to use instead of grave robbing.

A friend of mine, a stem cell biologist, claims the entire issue is misunderstood. He's a proponent of using umbilical cord stemcells because he says the properties of embryonic are no better, are less abundant and full of controvery. He says umbilical cord cells are pluripotent, capable of developing into anything but an entire new fetus or placenta. Since embryonic cells are extracted from the inner cell mass of an embryo they are no different. Yet, embryonic stem cells get all the attention. I forget all that he said but there were issues around cancerous embryo cells. Lets face it, many of the embryos that would be used would eventually be miscarried by the mother anyway. Probably for good reason. An umbilical cord has past all the viability health tests, and the supply is potentially unlimited. He mentioned something about needing up to one hundred or more embryos to produce a line for one potential transplant. He's alittle fed up with the public debate.

I think the public never get to hear the facts in these cases....

I am reading new information just on this forum from you three authors.

I admit I haven't done my homework because I am so put off by the flaming rhetorical hollering every time the topic comes up.

Meanwhile people could be helped.

I find it fascinating all this "holy mystique" around a female's eggs when she regularly expells them during all of her child bearing years, without a second thought.

C, here is his bio and an interview. He was also the Scientific Director of Markham Fertility clinic prior to his newer job. Markham is now considered one the best in Canada. He knows his stuff on anything related to the fields of IVF and stemcells. He's the kind of guy who would enjoy coming here for a debate should anyone want to take him on. He's not an argumentive guy, very nice actually, but the issue gets him stirred like no other.

Bio:

Dr. Hollands is the Chief Scientific Officer of the --, which is the European branch of the Boston based --. Dr. Hollands trained with Professor R.G. Edwards FRS at Cambridge University in the area of embryonic stem cells. On being awarded a PhD in stem cell biology, he worked as a clinical embryologist at Bourn Hall Clinic, the world’s first IVF unit. Following this, he became an academic at Anglia Polytechnic University in Cambridge, teaching in medical sciences and carrying out research in the field of stem cell biology. He has numerous publications to his credit on the subject of stem cells and clinical embryology.

Interview:

Tell us about the UK Cord Blood Bank

UK Cord Blood Bank is the European branch of the Boston based New England Cord Blood Bank. We are in the process of creating a new cord blood stem cell processing, storage and research lab in Manchester UK. This lab will serve not only Europe but also the Middle East and will provide state of the art technology to our private cord blood clients and the same high quality of service to those people who decide to donate their cord blood to us either for use in our public bank or for research.

What long term goals do you have?

To see the full potential of cord blood stem cells recognised and to see their extended use on an international basis. Cord blood stem cells are tried and tested in the treatment of blood disorders. Exciting new research tells us that these same cells can also make nerve cells, insulin secreting cells, muscle cells and many other tissue types. We therefore have a model in which we can create stem cell therapies, for a range of diseases, using a source of stem cells which is currently considered to be biologcal waste.

When you're not at work or dealing with industry activities what do you do for yourself? Hobbies, interests?

I have 2 children aged 4 and nearly 7 so they keep me pretty busy! We moved back to the UK in 2005 after 2 years in Toronto and we have just bought a newly built house not far from Cambridge UK. If I do get any spare time I enjoy a game of golf and playing the guitar and clarinet but not all at once!

What stage of your education were you at when Louise Brown was born?

I was an undergraduate in Cambridge when Louise Brown was born. I already knew Bob Edwards at that time (as a lecturer) and I was determined to work with him.

Did her birth have any influence on the path you took?

Yes. This was a massive event for everyone in the world (not least Louise and her parents). Many medical breakthroughs, for example a heart transplant, start off as international news and in a few years become routine attracting little or no daily interest. The difference with IVF is that it seems to constantly produce new ideas and concepts and the level of interest has therefore been maintained to this day.

In the 80's you studied and worked under Robert Edwards, the co-founder of IVF. You were involved in pioneering many of the processes that we take for granted today. Tell us what it was like to learn and work in that environment.

Once I graduated I began my PhD under the supervision of Bob Edwards. These were exciting, pioneering days and I was priviliged to be involved. The research on stem cell biology I carried out laid the groundwork for much of the research ongoing today. Bourn Hall Clinic was equally exciting and innovative and of course the only IVF clinic in the world! Patients came from all around the world to be treated by the team there. Very impressive for a little village in rural Cambridgeshire.

Once I completed my PhD my post-doc was at Bourn Hall. I joined the team there and worked with some of the most famous people in IVF such as Simon Fishel and Jacques Cohen. I think that I was extremely lucky to be in 'the right place at the right time' and to be part of medical history.

Aside from Professor Edwards, and perhaps Patrick Steptoe, who do you feel have made some of the most important scientific contributions to IVF?

Edwards and Steptoe were a team and without both of them IVF would not exist. It was in fact a chance meeting at a conference which brought them together. Bob recognised that Patricks' laparoscopy technique could be used to collect human eggs...............the rest is history.

I think that the Australians, in particular Alan Trounsen and his team, have made the biggest contributions to further IVF technology for example the freezing of human embryos.

During the 80's and 90's you were involved in non-human embryonic stemcell research. You're no longer a proponent of this field. Was there a critical event, finding or discovery that influenced your decision to drop embryonic stemcell research for adult/umbilical cord blood stemcells?

My research in the early 1980's laid the groundwork for embryonic stem cell technology using the mouse embryo. Even in those early days I knew that to try to take this technology to the human would raise serious legal, ethical, moral and religious objections. There were also major technical problems such as potential tumour formation not to mention the practical problems of obtaining human embryos for such research. Embryonic stem cell technology today has not really progressed very far for these reasons.

I have worked on all types of stem cell, with the exception of human embryonic, and as a stem cell biologist I am convinced that cord blood stem cells represent the realistic hope for future stem cell therapies. They have all of the potential of embryonic stem cells without the associated problems and objections.

What is the most challenging issue you see your industry facing in the years ahead?

In IVF we need to improve success rates. There has been a slow improvement since the early days but even at the very best clinics 60% of patients go away disappointed rising to at least 70% at some clinics.

In stem cell biology we need to first decide which types of stem cell to concentrate on. There is a massive waste of time, money and resources, in my opinion, on embryonic stem cells. We need to focus all of this effort onto cord blood/adult stem cells to ensure that we help the people who matter: The patients waiting for stem cell therapy.

Is there one book or piece of literature in any aspect of assisted reproductive technology or stemcell biology that you would consider the most important or thought provoking? A personal favorite that's a must read of sorts for students or professionals.

A Matter of Life by Edwards and Steptoe is brilliant but unfortunately out of press. It describes the work leading up to the birth of Louise Brown in an easy to read style. If you find a copy treasure it!

There is unfortunately no equivalant in the stem cell world, perhaps I should write it.............

What do you see as the next potential breakthrough in IVF/ART?

Hopefully new technology to increase success rates. This is the one area of IVF which has always disappointed me.


Regarding IVF patients:


Aside from location and costs, what advice would you give someone who is trying to choose a clinic?

Make sure that you like the people who will be treating you and that they listen to you and respond to your wishes. It is also a good idea to check out success rates for your clinic. No one wants to be part of a learning curve!

You have been a proponent of limiting the number of embryos transferred to two per cycle. Under what circumstances, if any, do you feel more than two is appropriate?

Two embryos is the standard here in the UK with an ongoing debate for one embryo. The rationale behind this is related to the problems associated with multiple births not only medical but social and financial.

There is a philosophy to allow three embryos in a patient who is older than 40 in attempt to increase success rates in this group. I remain to be convinced that this actually makes any difference in this age group.


Regarding multiple failed outcomes, how do we know when enough is enough?

This is a matter of personal choice. Anyone in this situation should receive careful, professional counselling to assist in the decision making process.

Kreskin - thank you so much.

I had heard of Edwards and Steptoe but this is all new research information I am reading here. I am confused because I see ads advising parents who are waiting birth to bank their cord blood to assist "their own children" - but I don't hear of anything else being done - perhaps because I am not awaiting a baby!

I should query some recent mothers and ask them if they were counselled or queried on this topic.

What a fantastic field.... I have always felt (in my mystical moments) that all the answers are here with us - yet to be discovered.... maybe this is one of those answers.

I'm an IVF parent, even donated 5 embryos to research. Actually donated the umbilical cord to embryonic research (not stem cell research but work with a rare genetic condition). Our clinic didn't even mention cord blood storage. Ticked me off after the fact. I'm sure we aren't alone.

Nevertheless it was a fascinating experience.

Kreskin

Fascinating is right - I've never spoken with anyone who went through that - so if you haven't been allowed to save your child's cord blood .... you have no future claim to it? I still don't know how it is stored or if lost in the scientific labs....rather than under donor name.

There are public service announcements here all the time about banking cord blood... I guess a portion is enough and the rest can be used for research or am I imagining things again?

Where is Tracy when we need her?

With us the cord was sent to UBC department of genetics. There was no permament storage arrangement. Once they did the research it was gone. Whereas they could have told us about storage for future use as an option but didn't. In reality part could have been stored and the rest used for research.

If you want to know more about me that just about anyone else you can see a recap of the research they did at -- . I'm known as the "proband". Nice name huh?

I felt I did them a huge favour by being a willing lab rat. I wish they would have taken the step to give us the storage option advice. Seems alittle one-sided in afterthought but I am very thankful to them for the work they did to bring us a wonderful daughter. In some ways I think my willingness to participate as I did resulted in them paying alittle more attention to the details on us at every step through IVF. It felt that way.

...yeah...
Typically the stem cell argument doesn't dilineate between govt and private research
nor does it discuss some of the problems of govt. funding and nor does it discuss adult vs embryo
stem cell gains, and really is just another prop on the stage to demonize each opponent.

Congratulations on your healthy daughter.

Kreskin/proband

I'll ditto that - may your daughter have a wonderfully fulfilled and healthy life.

Thanks also to you and your wife in taking part.

Very INTERESTING and informative posts Kreskin.

Thanks.

I don't know sheeee-it.

Great forum. Once again.