Number of embryos can't support stem cell needs

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
UK Researcher: Embryonic Stem Cells Have Never Been Used to Treat Anyone and no Plans Exist to do so

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082401.html

This was published in a pro-life publication so it's easy for naysayers to brush off with an argument of bias but the person interviewed is no slouch on the topic. Dr Hollands is a PhD in stem cell biology who has seen it all and pioneered in almost every aspect of assisted human reproductive technologies. I know him first hand and can verify that he knows as much about embryology and stem cell biology as anybody. Any company he has worked for he has been in the capacity of chief scientific officer, and every one of those companies have become tops in their industries under his direction. I would not under estimate his insight.


UNITED KINGDOM, August 23, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Modern stem-cell advancements in umbilical cord blood have rendered human embryonic stem-cell research unnecessary according to a prestigious UK researcher, who calls cord blood the “realistic future of stem-cell technology.”

In this second part of an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.com, Dr. Peter Hollands, the Chief Science Officer of the UK Blood Bank and early pioneer of embryonic stem-cell research, explains that embryonic stem-cell researchers will keep their public mandate unless a vast media campaign educates the public about the superior benefits and proven cures of cord blood.

In a previous interview, Dr. Hollands explained that the success of cord blood depends on its superior “mesenchymal stem-cells” found in the blood of the placenta and umbilical cord after a baby’s birth. These stem-cells possess unique properties giving them “just as much potential as embryonic stem cells but without all of the related objections and technical concerns.” (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06081804.html)

“As a scientist, and even as a lay person, it is simple to see that cord blood as a source of stem cells for therapy and research is the easiest route to take,” says Dr. Hollands. “We have a never ending supply of cord blood and if we can start to collect and store this valuable resource instead of discarding it then we will start to make real progress in stem cell therapy and research.”

However, Dr. Hollands takes issue with those who contend that patient therapies can be obtained from human embryonic stem-cells.

“To claim that there are enough ‘spare’ embryos in IVF clinics is nonsense,” says Dr. Hollands. “These embryos could not support the demand for stem cell transplants” adding embryonic stem cells also have a tendency “to form tumors on transplantation”.

He adds, “It is important to note that embryonic stem cells have never been used to treat anyone and that there are no plans to do so. In the UK for example we have invested millions in a national stem cell bank which contains approximately 6 different embryonic stem cell lines none of which are suitable for transplant.”

Dr. Hollands says that embryonic stem-cell researchers have taken advantage of the public ignorance about stem-cells.

“Currently the average person thinks that embryonic stem cells are the only option available … [believing] if we are going to help those people suffering from disease then we have no option but to pursue embryonic stem cell technology. This is completely incorrect,” maintains Dr. Hollands.

He adds, “If the public knew that there is a source of stem cells, available at the birth of every child in the world, which carry no risk at all to anyone in their collection or production, then there would be immense public pressure to support cord blood stem cell technology.”

Believing that the media and celebrities are responsible for the current confusion about stem-cells, Dr. Hollands advocates a counter strategy using the media and celebrities to educate and inform the public about the superior benefits of cord blood as a source of stem-cells. Dr. Hollands says a five pronged strategy would include:

-prime time TV/radio reports/interviews,
-public education campaigns (TV/radio/media/posters/internet)
-celebrity endorsement of cord blood stem cell technology (a key ally for embryonic stem-cell researchers)
-politicians campaigning for cord blood stem technology
-Newspaper reports on cord blood stem cell technology

Dr. Hollands argues that once the people are made aware that cord blood offers superior benefits over embryonic stem-cells then “embryonic stem-cell groups will find it impossible to justify their actions.”

However he believes that a real turnaround in the stem-cell debate “needs someone, at the highest level, to realize that the wrong path has been chosen and to have the courage to change.”

“Rightly or wrongly there has been a massive investment in embryonic stem cell technology in time, money and resources,” says Dr. Hollands, adding that many scientists have built their careers around human embryonic stem-cell research.

“We should be focusing our time, money and expertise on cord blood stem cell technology,” says Dr. Hollands. “The sooner we stop wasting precious resources on embryonic stem cells research the sooner we will have stem cell cures for the people who really matter in all of this - the patients.”

See Part 1 of the LifeSiteNew interview with Dr. Hollands about the amazing advancements in cord blood stem cell research:

UK Researcher: Cord Blood Real Potential for Cures, Not Embryonic Stem Cells - Part 1
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06081804.html

Reporter’s Note: A researcher in the stem-cell biology/clinical embryology field for over 25 years boasting a PhD from Cambridge University, Dr. Peter Hollands has worked on all types of stem-cells with the exception of human embryonic stem-cells. He worked as a clinical embryologist with the team that created the first ever ‘test-tube’ baby at Bourn Hall Clinic, trained under Prof. Robert Edwards (the IVF co-inventor), and even set the groundwork for embryonic stem-cell research through the mouse-model. However, it was during his mouse-model research that Dr. Hollands realized the impossibility of transferring this technology to human beings, besides the violation of human life in destroying human embryos.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
RE: Number of embryos can

These stem-cells possess unique properties giving them “just as much potential as embryonic stem cells but without all of the related objections and technical concerns.”

So, is he trying to say that stem cells from the umbilical blood have as much potential (but not any more potential) than embryonic stem cells, but with less ethical concerns? It seems that he is more concerned about the ethics of stem cell research more than anything. An article in the globe and mail suggests that embryonic stem cells can now be harvested without destroying the embryo Link , so what is the difference between using umbilical blood stem cells and embryonic stem cells?
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Re: RE: Number of embryos can

gc said:
These stem-cells possess unique properties giving them “just as much potential as embryonic stem cells but without all of the related objections and technical concerns.”

So, is he trying to say that stem cells from the umbilical blood have as much potential (but not any more potential) than embryonic stem cells, but with less ethical concerns? It seems that he is more concerned about the ethics of stem cell research more than anything. An article in the globe and mail suggests that embryonic stem cells can now be harvested without destroying the embryo Link , so what is the difference between using umbilical blood stem cells and embryonic stem cells?

For starters, one difference is they are already using cord blood for stem cell transplants; something of fantasy for embryonic stem cells. Cord blood is easily and readily available if people simply don't throw the umbilical cords away. Some of the best guestimates on embryonic stem cells are that it might take 100 or more embryos to complete one transplant, if they ever figure out how to without high cancerous risks. Harvesting is extremely expensive, and the same principles of preimplantation genetic diagnostics (PGD), which costs multi-thousands for each procedure. PGD is not widely used or offered.

Even if both have the same potential, one is more efficient and far easier to research with and use regardless of the ethical debate. I know what frustrates him the most is the groupthink surrounding embryonic stem cells, that the rich and famous are ready to empty their wallets because they believe it's the only way.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Stem cell research as a science is in its infancy. What is inefficient or impossible today may not be tomorrow. We used to think that a computer as powerful as my laptop would take up two rooms.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
RE: Number of embryos can

Ok, your explanation makes more sense. I thought he was simply saying that the two types of stem cells are more or less equal but embryonic stem cells have additional ethical concerns, but after re-reading it I think I understand better.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Re: RE: Number of embryos can't support stem cell needs

tracy said:
Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Stem cell research as a science is in its infancy. What is inefficient or impossible today may not be tomorrow. We used to think that a computer as powerful as my laptop would take up two rooms.

Very true, anything is possible, but if I research the idea of consuming my computer for dinner I should have something to justify the expense of doing so. We could research the creation of edible computers until we're blue in the face but perhaps there are better alternatives for my dietary vision.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
46
Newfoundland!
I'm insulin dependant diabetic, and call me selfish but i want stem cell research to go ahead. I want a cure before my eyes fall apart, my kidneys stop working, my feet rot on the ends of my legs and my liver dies. I'm 27 and it's already starting. I have "microaneurisms" in my retinae.
 

feronia

Time Out
Jul 19, 2006
252
0
16
Now I'm a little lost. Using stem cells from the embryonic cord is more expensive to harvest than from an embryo. So the discussion now is not on morality but the dollar sign?

Not that I think it's morally wrong, but that’s a 200 page thesis I'm not willing to write.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
feronia said:
Now I'm a little lost. Using stem cells from the embryonic cord is more expensive to harvest than from an embryo. So the discussion now is not on morality but the dollar sign?

Not that I think it's morally wrong, but that’s a 200 page thesis I'm not willing to write.

Harvesting is dissecting an embryo to draw some stem cells out but leaving the embryo intact. That is a difficult procedure, one that is very costly case by case. Drawing stemcells from umbilical cord blood is easier, cheaper, less controversial, already being used in some transplants thus overall more practical. Even without the ethical debate it's a viable alternative, or at least one that deserves as much attention as embryonic stem cells.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
It is getting attention. The problem with umbilical stem cells from what I understand is that they don't have the potential to become any cell like an embryonic cell does. That is limiting. I'm all for umbilical blood collection, I've done it countless times working in L&D, I just don't think it needs to be done to the exclusion of embryonic research.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Tracy, most of the time, almost 100% of the time, retrieval of the umbilical cord is for esxclusive storage by the parents at a cord blood bank. It's rarely for research, although we had ours donated to research but we were under a different set of circumstances than most would find themselves in. Unless something dramatically different has changed in the last few years most delivering mothers aren't aware of either the storage or research options. The lack of overall awareness by the public in this area is unfortunate.

There is already evidence that cord blood stemcells can treat brain injuries, see http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20060821-101833-9766r.htm and there are advanced trials relating to treatment of multiple schlerosis and diabetes. Dr Hollands this year was involved in a cord blood transplant at Toronto's Sick Children's hospital to treat a young boy with leukemia. He also believes that cord blood stem cells can/will be used to virtually eradicate diseases like sickle cell anemia. All of this is happening but the public awareness is very low and the volume of storage continues to be a problem. In the least this should be spoken about in the same light as embryonic stem cell research as it isn't just a pipe dream. The person who got the brain repair as a result of the recent transplant will not care whether in theory cells can be differentiated or not, the results and application are what matters.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
It really depends on where you work Kreskin. I have mostly worked in large teaching hospitals since I started nursing. The only one where I did the storing for the parents was in Vancouver at BC Womens.

I agree the results are what matters, and for some people that will mean differentiation will be an issue. I don't want to just forget about them because umbilical cells work for someone else. It's like saying we shouldn't focus on researching liver cancer because we found effective treatments for prostate cancer.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I wouldn't suggest forgetting about any of them but the one that's being forgetten about is the one that is getting results; the one involving 6000 transplants in the treatment of 45 different diseases.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Re: RE: Number of embryos can't support stem cell needs

tracy said:
It is getting attention. The problem with umbilical stem cells from what I understand is that they don't have the potential to become any cell like an embryonic cell does. That is limiting. I'm all for umbilical blood collection, I've done it countless times working in L&D, I just don't think it needs to be done to the exclusion of embryonic research.

I asked Peter Hollands about this. He explained it as follows:

Totipotent means that a cell can form every part of a new person including placenta, fetus and membranes. The only totipotent cells known at present are the cells of the early embryo up to the point of compaction (16-32 cell stage). Beyond this point the cells of the embryo become lineage specific or pluripotent i.e. some will form the fetus, others the placenta others the membranes.

Embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass (ICM) of a blastocyst at day 5 of development. The creation of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the human embryo. The ICM is that area which will develop into the fetus. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent.

Cord blood stem cells are derived from cord blood collected after the birth of baby. Cord blood is biological waste if not collected. Cord blood stem cells are pluripotent.

Pluripotent means that a cell can form many different tissue types but not a complete new person.

Embryonic stem cells and cord blood stem cells are both pluripotent. They can both form all of tissues of the body (e.g. nerves, muscle, endorcrine cells, connective tissue, bone) but cord blood stem cells are derived from biological waste.


It appears they can become any cell, they just can be used to clone an entire new person.