Stem Cells

I decided I (finally) needed to start doing some medical reading. Behind the eight-ball, ya think??

At any rate, this was an intriguing abstract from a study I will read in depth:

Scientists Generate Stem Cell Line from Patient with Lou Gehrig's Disease

Privately funded scientists report successfully generating stem cells from a patient with an inherited form of Lou Gehrig's disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Starting with skin cells from the patient, the scientists used viruses to insert factors to reprogram the adult skin cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) (see Human Skin Cells Reprogrammed). Once they had generated an ALS-iPSC line, the scientists coaxed the cells into becoming the type of motor neurons that are destroyed in ALS. These iPSC-derived motor neurons carry genes responsible for ALS and hold great potential for investigating the ALS disease process in human cells. Scientists are still uncertain whether the iPSC-derived motor neurons will degenerate in the same way as the patient's naturally occurring motor neurons. Ongoing experiments are comparing healthy motor neurons to the ALS-iPSC–derived motor neurons. If the iPSC-derived motor neurons show signs of ALS-like degeneration, they will be invaluable for observing events in the course of the ALS disease process and for testing potential ALS drugs on human cells in the laboratory before the drugs are used in humans. Science advance online publication, laboratory of K. Eggan. 2008 July 31.

Of interest to me in this study:
1) The stem cells were generated using adult stem cells.
2) They were generated in the hope of observing the disease progress, in order to run drug trials that will not harm actual patients, which I would assume would allow for more progressive and innovative (read: risky) research.
3) The scientists running the study are privately-funded.

1) Why did the scientific community go to embryonic stem cells? Was this their first approach, or did some study or another suggest that they would work better than any others? It would seem, from the chronology that I've observed (admittedly, not in detail), that experimental success with adult stem cells is being reported only recently. Is that because the trials are just now coming to conclusions and they started the trials concurrently with embryonic research?

I wonder at the level to which we've sunk if our first thought is to start with an embryo. I guess it boils down to your definition of a living individual. If you believe that the baby growing inside a mother is merely a growth of cells, then they are cells that belong to her, they are part of an individual that reserves the right to do whatever she wants with her body. But if you recognize the embryo as an individual from the moment of conception, then that embryo is the most precious and innocent of all live, and deserves our utmost protection. The thought of fetus farming is reprehensible to me, as one who has taken medicine as her life's calling.

None of this is to say that I don't support the research -- I am sold! We should learn all we can, and innovate as many cures and preventions as possible. To that end, this study is extremely promising, because all individuals are served and protected, even the smallest of all.

2) Human cell petri dish -- how cool is that?? With this method, researchers can be as progressive in their drug protocols as they deem necessary without causing any harm. They can push the envelope and forge into new treatment territories. What a great place to start!

3) Privately-funded scientists would seem to have more freedom to innovate than those who are government-funded. Granted, the other side of the coin is the risk that your benefactor would not like the results you're observing and would threaten to pull the plug if you don't produce evidence to their liking. And there's the chance that the well would run dry. But on the upside, you would surely have more freedom, less parameters, and far less red tape than with the government funding your research.

On that note, I looked up John McCain's statements regarding health care and research. This was of interest:

Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines. (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm)

Admittedly, it's only slightly interesting, because it's the talking points, the public statement found on his website. But, from my limited knowledge, it lines up with what I believe to be right. I will learn more in the days and months to come, and will continue checking the alignment.