Embryonic Stem Cells

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I'm having an embryonic stem cell research debate on another forum, got this input: "I understand the need for research and development of stem cells and their potential, but there HAS been research on embryonic stem cells, all of which has been a big stinky failure. Because of the apparent "blank slate" that the cells offer scientists (known as totipotent cells), embryonic stem cells are unstable, leading to tumor formation, problems with immune response, difficulty in differentiation, and even genomic instability. There has been zero cures produced as a result of embryonic stem cell research, and the reason is not a simple "because there hasn't been ENOUGH research." There has. And it hasn't been very reassuring."


Is this true? Sources would be nice, or sources to refute this.

 

[Anders]

I think it is the opposit. Embryonic stem cells, ES cells, seems to be the right way to go, they are much more versitile compared to, stem cells from adult tissues which has some use, but just in a few very limited situations. But ES cells has not been researched that much yet, a lot of work are to be done before they can cure any disease.

Seems like more people than us are intressted in stem cells

 

[Roadtoad]

The critical debate as far as the ethics of Stem Cells is when does life begin. If you accept that life begins at conception, you're going to have one hell of a time convincing anyone that the research should go forward, because in order to achieve anything, you have to "kill" people. (My own view is that life begins when there's the capability of sentience, though I'm not sure when that is.)

You have to ask the question regarding the ethics, because without that, the whole debate is moot in the United States. As long as we have a Federal culture that decrees that life begins as conception, you won't have the research.