Monday, November 26, 2007

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 724

Messages In This Digest (7 Messages)

Messages

1.

Encourage stem cell research in all ways....By WILLIAM BRINKLEY

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:16 pm (PST)


Nov. 24, 2007, 2:29PM
Encourage stem cell research in all ways
Last week's news of breakthroughs should never mean a stop to promising
works in progress

By WILLIAM BRINKLEY
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Advances published last week in the area of stem cell research hold
great promise, particularly for those who seek to realize the potential
of embryonic stem cells.

The process described in studies published in the journals Science and
Cell could revolutionize the way in which such work is pursued in the
future.

However, all of this is couched in those terms: promise and could.
Scrutiny of the work is in its early stages, and we do not know how far
such work can go; nor are we aware of all the pitfalls involved. Such
unknowns always exist in science and should not impede an enthusiastic
spate of work in this area.

On the other hand, it should not halt work in areas that are already
established and have been under way for nearly a decade.

Currently, research in the use of a technique called somatic cell
nuclear transfer to produce patient-specific human embryonic stem cells
holds great promise as well, both for understanding disease development
and progression, and for organ and tissue replacement.

Unfortunately, legal constraints that restrict public access to
embryonic stem cells lines have delayed this work in Texas and
nationally. Indeed, much of the enthusiasm for the new work published
last week is generated by the fact that it avoids these legal and
ethical issues.

Stem cell nuclear transfer involves taking the genetic material from a
mature cell, such as a skin cell, and transferring it into the nucleus
of an egg from which the genetic material has been removed. The egg then
divides and produces an embryo that is genetically identical to the
mature organism from which the genetic material is drawn. Dolly, the
first cloned sheep, came from this kind of effort. The promise of the
technique lies in its potential to produce patient-specific stem cells
that can be used to study disease and eventually produces treatments.

Although stem cell nuclear transfer has worked effectively in rodents
and other experimental animals, it has not yet worked to produce
patient-specific stem cells. Earlier this month, a research team led by
Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov at the Oregon Health & Science University
reported success using the technique with Rhesus macaque monkeys. This
was the first report of success for such work in primates. It offers
considerable promise and renewed hope that the procedural modification
will work in other higher primates, including humans. The successful
breakthrough was praised as "highly encouraging" by stem cell
researchers far and wide, including Dr. Paul Simmons at The University
of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Dr. Margaret Goodell,
director of Baylor College of Medicine's Stem Cell and Regenerative
Medicine (STaR) Center.

Even the British creator of the cloned sheep Dolly, Dr. Ian Wilmut,
praised the work of the Oregon team as a significant step forward toward
human application. However, in a separate report, he personally vowed to
abandon the stem cell nuclear transfer technique for cloning human cells
in favor of the new procedure revealed in Cell and Science last week.

Using slightly different techniques that involve the same principle, the
two teams — one from the University of Kyoto in Japan and the other
from the University of Wisconsin — created pluripotent human stem
cells using the process known as "deprogramming" human somatic cells
(i.e., skin fibroblasts). The procedure involves exposing the skin cells
to specific signaling agents that reprogram the genetic expression
pattern of a cell. This prompts the cells to switch from becoming skin
cells to becoming more embryonic-like. They are pluripotent, capable of
developing into various other tissues and organ-specific cells. Although
this approach is still in early stages, several seminal papers will be
appearing in journals in the next month that give great credence to this
alternative approach.

Such developments should be seriously considered by the stem cell
research community, as they offer yet another rational approach to
making patient-specific pluripotent stem cells.

The new discoveries generate optimism about future development of
techniques that may circumvent the use of human embryonic stem cells.
However, I, along with others in the field, believe that to disregard
any procedure that currently holds promise is shortsighted and
scientifically risky. Stem cell nuclear transfer already holds distinct
promise, as the Oregon team's ability to produce a wide array of
embryonic cells in experimental primates demonstrates.

Choosing to focus on only one avenue of research or type of cell source,
would — at this stage of regenerative medical research — be
irresponsible, unreasonable and premature. Promising and successful
research exploring human stem cells should be supplemented with —
not supplanted by — new and potentially exciting approaches, with
all forms of research moving forward along multiple independent paths.

Scientific research in cancer, diabetes, tissue regeneration or other
areas should proceed freely and openly along all viable lines of
investigation until there is sufficient progress that can be
successfully applied to the treatment and alleviation of diseases and
human suffering.

In fact, these various lines of research will probably produce new
findings that will complement each other and expand our depth and
breadth of knowledge. Exciting new discoveries will be made in the field
of embryonic stem cell research, and no one knows what important
discoveries would be missed if we were to abandon stem cell nuclear
transfer to "place all of our eggs in one new basket," especially if
that decision were largely driven by emotional and political expediency.

Brinkley is senior vice president and dean of the Graduate School of
Biomedical Sciences at Baylor College Of Medicine. He can be reached at
brinkley@bcm.edu <mailto:brinkley@bcm.edu> .

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
2.

Stem-cell science outruns political debate....San Jose Mercury News

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:42 pm (PST)

Stem-cell science outruns political debate By Marcy Darnovsky Article
Launched: 11/23/2007 01:36:53 AM PST San Jose Mercury News

Research teams at two prestigious universities announced a major feat of
biological alchemy this week: They've taken ordinary human cells and
turned them into cells with all the characteristics and promise of
embryonic stem cells.
This entirely new way to derive what the researchers are calling induced
pluripotent stem (iPS) cells uses neither eggs nor embryos. Instead, it
reprograms body cells, reactivating genes that return them to the
undifferentiated state characteristic of "conventional" embryonic stem
cells.
If the new technique holds up, it will also reprogram the science and
politics of stem-cell research.
Consider first the technical advance that so-called "direct
reprogramming" represents. It starts with bits of skin - biological
materials that are plentiful and readily available, instead of eggs that
have to be extracted from women with invasive and risky procedures. Nor
does it require embryos, whose destruction evokes strong objections from
some religious conservatives.
What's more, direct reprogramming promises to deliver the benefits that
cloning-based stem-cell research was thought to offer, without its major
risks. It could yield disease-specific stem cells that would be valuable
in screening drugs for safety and efficacy, or in studying early disease
processes. If researchers can learn to control the differentiation and
prevent the tumor-forming tendencies of iPS cells - the same challenges
they face with other sorts of embryonic stem cells - then the new method
could someday be used to produce patient-specific treatments or
replacement tissues that wouldn't trigger immune reactions.

If direct reprogramming fulfills these expectations, it will be
difficult to argue for continuing to experiment with cloning techniques
that require large numbers of women's eggs and increase the chances of
unauthorized efforts to create a cloned human being.
In fact, Ian Wilmut of Dolly-the-cloned-sheep fame reached that very
conclusion last week, and announced that he'll no longer participate in
what scientists had been calling the "cloning race." Since Wilmut leads
one of the handful of cloning research teams in the world, and holds one
of only two licenses in the United Kingdom to work on cloning
techniques, his decision has practical as well as symbolic meaning.
Of course, many technical hurdles remain before iPS cells are ready for
the doctor's office. But the work seems to be moving extraordinarily
quickly. There's been little progress in cloning research over the past
10 years. Although primate embryos were finally cloned for the first
time earlier this month, it still takes hundreds of eggs to produce a
stem-cell line, across all the species that have been cloned. By
contrast, researchers were able to transfer their success in direct
reprogramming in mice to human cells in less than six months.
In short, the technical prospects of direct reprogramming are
overwhelmingly positive. And its political promise is also enormous. It
could smooth the contention and polarization that have marked the
stem-cell debate, disconnect the stem-cell issue from culture-war
battles over embryo politics and abortion rights, and put an end to the
use of embryonic-stem-cell research as a political wedge issue. We can
even hope to see policy-makers move forward with much-needed oversight
of emerging biotechnologies, including a federal ban on human
reproductive cloning.
What lessons about politics and science should we take from this turn of
events? Some may be tempted to argue that political values should be
kept out of decisions about scientific research and new technologies.
But that would be a mistake. There's a right way and a wrong way to join
politics and science; the stem-cell debate offers a prime example of how
not to do it.
Partisan political expediency doesn't belong in science. But we do need
thoughtful debate, nuanced decisions, and careful policy-making on human
biotechnologies. And we surely want to bring into these considerations
our best sense of the technologies' likely social consequences, and our
commitments to human rights, social justice and the public interest.
MARCY DARNOVSKY is associate executive director at the Center for
Genetics and Society in Oakland. She wrote this article for the Mercury
News.
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
3.

Stem-cell advance opens up the field...The Christian Science Monitor

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:44 pm (PST)

Stem-cell advance opens up the field By Peter N. Spotts
11/24/2007
The Christian Science Monitor (www.csmonitor.com
<http://www.csmonitor.com/> )
With a new technique's lower cost and scrubbed-up ethics, more labs are
likely to enter the arena.
"This is a paradigm shift," agrees Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, director of
education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.
"This will have a huge impact on the ethical debate.
Washington, DC (The Christian Science Monitor) - Colonies of tiny cells
flourishing in petri dishes in the US and Japan are reshaping the
political and ethical landscape surrounding human stem-cell research.

In the process, these diminutive colonies also may level the playing
field in stem-cell research – internationally and domestically.

These are some of the effects analysts say they see coming out of this
week's announcements that two teams have genetically reprogrammed skin
cells so that they take on the traits of embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are the subject of intense medical interest because
of their ability to develop into any of the major cell types in the
human body. Over the long term, these stem cells could become the
foundation for therapies for a range of diseases, scientists say. This
week's announcement suggests it will be possible for scientists to study
these cells without the ethical and political difficulties of harvesting
them from unused human embryos.

For the emerging field of stem-cell research, "this is enormous," says
Jesse Reynolds, a policy analyst at the liberal Center for Genetics and
Society, based in Oakland, Calif. "I can't think of another development
"that has been this big,"

"This is a paradigm shift," agrees Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, director of
education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.
"This will have a huge impact on the ethical debate."

That debate has centered on the sources for human embryonic stem cells
– especially those that have the potential to be patient-specific.
For research purposes, scientists have turned to fertility clinics where
patients either have donated their nascent embryos to research or no
longer need them to start a family. But the process of extracting the
stem cells destroys these soon-to-be embryos, technically called
blastocysts. The destruction is abhorrent to those who hold that human
life begins at conception.

The ethical debate grows more heated when cloning – the most
controversial idea for generating patient-specific stem cells –
enters the picture. In 1997, a team in Scotland led by Ian Wilmut cloned
Dolly the sheep from adult tissue by extracting the DNA from nucleus of
adult cells and injecting it into the emptied nuclei of unfertilized
sheep eggs. The eggs were fertilized, then implanted into ewes.

The approach is banned in humans. Last week, however, scientists from
the Oregon National Primate Research Center in Beaverton, reported for
the first time that they had used the technique to generate embryonic
stem cells cloned from an adult primate – a macaque monkey. This
strongly hinted that eventually the approach could work with humans.

But the technique, which in principle could draw on a patient's own
cells to generate new tissue for treatments, is highly inefficient –
requiring many eggs to yield one successful clone from which stem cells
can be drawn and nurtured. It implies generating nascent embryos
exclusively as stem-cell factories. And it raises the concern among many
people that the approach will lead eventually to cloning humans as a
means of reproduction.

By contrast, the US and Japanese teams discovered genetic triggers that
could in effect turn back the clock on already-developed cells. Working
independently, each team found four genes that, when introduced into the
nucleus of skin cells, yielded cells indistinguishable from embryonic
stem cells. The Japanese team, led by Kazutoshi Takahashi at the
University of Kyoto, used the approach on mice last year. His lab, and
one led by the University of Wisconsin's James Thompson, essentially
tied for the race to test the approach using human cells.

For now, the two groups' work "changes everything and changes nothing;
and caution is warranted," says Dr. Thompson. "This changes everything
because these are not from embryos." But, he adds, it changes nothing
because scientists still don't know how embryonic stem cells morph into
the wide variety of cell types in the body. The caution comes because
without that information, it's unclear if the new cells can live up to
their promise. Thus, research on human embryonic stem cells is still
vital, he emphasizes.

Still, some labs appear to be doing that. In Scotland, Dr. Wilmut
announced earlier in the week that his lab is dropping the cloning
approach and focusing on the genetic reprogramming approach as well.

If this is any indication, a shift in stem-cell research could follow.
The new technique's relative ease, lower cost, higher output, and
scrubbed-up ethics are likely to draw more labs into the field, Thompson
suggests.

Moreover, such an expansion might further invigorate US research in the
face of aggressive competition from countries like Britain and Japan.

The advance could trigger some interesting political shifts, some
analysts suggest. For example, US restrictions on embryonic stem-cell
research could become harder to change in light of these discoveries,
according to Alta Charro, a University of Wisconsin law professor.

Already, the issue appears to be losing traction, Mr. Reynolds adds.
Earlier this month, for instance, New Jersey voters rejected a plan to
borrow $450 million for the state's stem-cell research program.

Indeed, the defeat, the discoveries, and the prospect that a new
administration might loosen the federal purse strings for human
embryonic stem research could add an element of uncertainty to existing
or planned state stem-cell programs.

"Right now, all of the activities on the pro-stem-cell front in the
states has been driven by the lack of federal funding for this
research," says Patrick Kelly of the Biotechnology Industry
Organization. "So if a new administration comes in and approves more
federal funding, the need in the states is going to be diminished." But
in states with existing programs "I don't think they'll ever be
redundant."

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
4.

Stanford researchers say new stem cell method has promise ...Media-N

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:47 pm (PST)

Stanford researchers say new stem cell method has promise STANFORD,
Calif. - Researchers from Wisconsin and Japan announced today they had
reprogrammed adult human cells to act like embryonic stem cells, a
discovery that researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine are
calling a big step toward new therapies for disease.
(Media-Newswire.com) - STANFORD, Calif. — Researchers from Wisconsin
and Japan announced today they had reprogrammed adult human cells to act
like embryonic stem cells, a discovery that researchers at Stanford
University School of Medicine are calling a big step toward new
therapies for disease.

The work marks the first time researchers have taken adult human cells
and used them to create genetically identical stem cells that can then
become a wide range of cell types. This technique eliminates the need to
use human eggs and create embryos before harvesting the stem cells,
overcoming what, to some people, is an ethically troubling aspect of the
research.

"This is a truly wonderful discovery," said Irving Weissman, MD,
director of Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and
Regenerative Medicine.

Today's news comes a week after researchers at the Oregon Health &
Science University announced creating embryonic stem cells from adult
primate cells using nuclear transfer, a technique that requires creating
an embryo to extract genetically identical stem cells.

"Both methods give the promise that one can capture in a stem cell
line the genetic diseases of the patients that donate the body
cells," said Weissman. Stem cells created from the cells of a person
with multiple sclerosis, for example, could provide researchers with a
way of understanding how that disease develops and eventually lead to
new ways of preventing or treating the disease.

Cells that are genetically identical to a person could also be
transplanted to treat a disease such as Alzheimer's without
triggering an immune reaction.

Both Weissman and Renee Reijo Pera, PhD, director of human embryonic
stem cell research and education, say they intend to continue pursuing
all avenues of embryonic stem cell research. "We should not gamble
on which method will prove best because patients who may have a narrow
window of time for therapies depend on us to use the method that will
get us there faster and best," Weissman said.

Reijo Pera added that for studying the earliest steps in the developing
embryo, her particular focus, nuclear transfer is still the only option.
The technique announced today generates stem cells but doesn't mimic
the first days of human development, an area of study that could lead to
advances in treating infertility or preventing birth defects.

"There's a lot of need to understand those earliest stages for
women's health and infertility," she said.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
5.

Vatican expert praises discovery of new stem cell technique not invo

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:48 pm (PST)

Vatican expert praises discovery of new stem cell technique not
involving embryos

Rome, Nov 23, 2007 / 10:33 am (CNA <http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/>
).- The chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Msgr. Ignacio
Carrasco, described as "very positive and important" the
discovery of a new technique for obtaining stem cells that does not
involve the destruction of a human embryo.

Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka of the University of Kyoto and
American scientist James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin,
published the results of their discovery in the magazines Cell and
Science.

Both were able to obtain stem cells using human skin cells. Scientists
are calling the discovery revolutionary as it would allow doctors to
create stem cells with a specific patient's genetic code, eliminating
the risk that the body would reject transplanted tissues or organs.

Speaking to Europa Press, Msgr. Carrasco said that in addition to being
"an important scientific step," the discovery also shows that
many scientists have "taken seriously" the "ethical
objections" to the cloning of human embryos.

In this sense, the fact that two different groups of scientists have
embarked on this project shows that "researchers also have a
conscience," Msgr. Carrasco said.

However, he noted with concern that the controversy over research with
human embryos "would continue," since therapeutic cloning
"was only a justification" and interest in the manipulation of
embryos continues, especially from an economic point of view.

Professor Lukas Kenner of the Institute of Clinical Pathology at the
University of Vienna and until recently a member of the Pontifical
Academy for Life, said this discovery confirms that "research with
embryos has no future," and that those who "insist on continuing
down this road have other motives."

Ideological and economical motives

In an interview with the Italian daily Avvenire, Kenner pointed to
"ideological motives" behind the push for embryonic stem-cell
research. "It must be made clear that any attempt to create life
apart from the fusion of the sperm and the egg is not justifiable from
the biological point of view. On the contrary, to separate the
attribution of human dignity from the beginning of biological life is
bio-ethically explosive," he said.

Kenner also pointed out the economic interests that exist behind the
support for embryonic stem-cell research, especially since
experimentation with animals "is much more costly."
"Liberalizing research with embryos would mean huge economic savings
for research labs," he said.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
6.

# 390 Friday, November 16, 2007 - FERTILIZED EGG ELIGIBLE FOR DRIVER

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:05 pm (PST)


# 390 Friday, November 16, 2007
<file:///C:/My%20Webs/myweb11/Archive%20322%20Monday,%20April%2020,%2020\
07%20-%20FLORIDA%20ONCE%20MORE%20PIVOTAL%20TO%20NATIONรข€™S%20FUTURE\
.htm> - FERTILIZED EGG ELIGIBLE FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE?

We are indebted to DAILY KOS for bringing this issue to public
attention: see article
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/14/145659/75
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/14/145659/75>

I'm joking about the driver's license, of course. But there the
humor ends.

Read a few sentences from an Associated Press article by P. Solomon
Banda, "Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown", Wednesday,
November 14, 2007.

"DENVER (AP) " The Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way
Tuesday for an anti-abortion group to collect signatures for a ballot
measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person. (emphasis
added-dr)"

"If approved by voters, the measure would give fertilized eggs the
state constitutional protections of inalienable rights, justice and due
process"

"(opponents)" said the measure would hamper in-vitro fertilization
and stem cell research and would effectively ban birth control.

"" similar voter-led initiatives or legislative efforts are under
way in five other states, including Montana, Georgia, Oregon, Michigan
and South Carolina."

Friends of this column may recollect a similar effort we defeated in
California several years ago, in which a seemingly unrelated bill
parental notification of abortion-- contained language which could have
shut down embryonic stem cell research.

That one was defeated by a margin so narrow that one leading paper ran a
story incorrectly announcing the measure had won"

Consider: if a fertilized egg is legally defined as a person, embryonic
stem cell research could be considered murder.

Also birth control

And, of course, all forms of abortion, at any stage.

I have felt for years that the Religious Right was attacking stem cell
research for a hidden reason" if they could find a way to call
embryonic stem cell research murder, by saying a few cells are the legal
equivalent of a person, that would automatically criminalize all forms
of abortion.

To stop abortion, they would deny everyone the greatest medical advance
in history.

I personally think America has it about right on abortion. We are in the
middle, neither totally for, nor totally against it. If I understand
correctly, and I am absolutely not an expert on this, it is legal to
have an abortion in the early stages, but not later, when the child has
a chance at survival on its own. Other than that, it is the woman's
decision.

But whatever one's opinion is on abortion, there is a huge
difference between a child growing in the nurturing shelter of a
mother's womb-- and some cells in a dish of water. Implanted in
the womb, a blastocyst could become a baby. Stem cells in a Petri dish
biologically cannot become a child "I defy any opponent of research
to show how a baby can be born in a 5" dish of salt water, or on a
microscope slide-- it is physiologically impossible.

This is basic biology. How can there be a pregnancy, unless the
fertilized egg implants in the walls of the womb? Without implantation,
there is no pregnancy, and no child.

Cells, cells, nothing but cells; stem cell research is nothing but
cells.

Eventually, reason will prevail, and the attacks on our research will
cease, or at least become so ignored as to have no effect. But that day
could be delayed fifty years.

What could happen if Colorado passed a law stating that a blastocyst-- a
microscopic fertilized egg, even one in a Petri dish-- has all the
constitutional protections of a born human being?

That could provide grounds for another lawsuit against the California
stem cell program, attempting to shut us down.

The last frivolous lawsuit delayed us almost two years.

And if the case was appealed all the way to the current U.S. Supreme
Court, can anyone guarantee how they would rule?

A bad decision could take decades to reverse.

There are 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats on this court. Do we want such
an ultra-conservative court to have a chance to rule on the
Constitutionality of stem cell research?

P.S. Sadly, I must retract my earlier statement about trusting GOP
candidate Rudi Giuliani on stem cells at a recent Republican debate,
both he and McCain made statements opposing the SCNT process. If we want
a President who fully supports stem cell research, he or she will have
to be a Democrat this time. None of the current crop of Republicans
appears able to break away from the Religious Right on the issue of
medical research.

Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com <http://www.stemcellbattles.com/>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
7.

THE STEM CELL DEBATE .....The Bangkok Post

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:23 pm (PST)


THE STEM CELL DEBATE

The Bangkok Post

Monday November 26, 2007

It's being touted as the latest

cure-all, but is

this new therapy

really safe?

Story by APIRADEE TREERUTKUARKUL

It's the year 2030. Satta Silarat is lying in his hospital bed,
breathing slowly against a background of rapid beeps from the heart
monitor. The old man has been suffering from heart disease for a long
time and needs an urgent operation.

After surgery, Satta recovers and is discharged.

The day he is discharged a man in a dark suit is waiting for him out in
front of the hospital.

''It's not good if anybody sees us meeting,'' Satta tells the man, who
works for Amata, an organ cloning company.

The firm provided the cloned heart he received during the transplant
operation that saved his life.

''I'm just curious,'' the man in the dark suit says. ''If you're so much
against our company, why did you opt to use our cloning service?''

Satta comes to a halt. ''If I'm dead, who's going to lead the protests
against your company?'' the old activist says wryly.

This is a scene from an entry in the cartoon and animation competition
about bioethics run by the National Health Foundation and the National
Centre for Genetics Engineering and Biotechnology.

The bioethics of cloning and the use of stem cells is currently the
subject of heated debate.

And although the scene depicted is only an animation, it really could
happen in the next 20 years.

Stem cells are immature cells which have the capacity to turn into many
different types of cells that make up tissues and organs. Experts have
heralded stem cell transplants as the future for treatment of various
genetic disorders.

Cells can be obtained from many sources _ embryos, adult tissue, bone
marrow, blood and umbilical cord.

Stem cell injections are increasingly being used worldwide to treat
ailments as diverse as Parkinson's disease and diabetes.

Some medical researchers claim stem cell treatment can prolong a
patient's life and tout the process as the new hope for sufferers of
chronic diseases.

However, there are also concerns that commercial banking of stem cells,
or injecting them into a patient, is more hype than hope.

''Do we pin much hope on medical advances? Stem cell treatment for most
chronic diseases is still very much in the research stage and any
advertising [about their efficacy] should be a subject of concern,''
said Prasert Palittapongarnpim, a stem cell expert at Chiang Rai
Prachanukroh hospital.

Dr Prasert warned that while stem cell treatment had been proven
successful for leukaemia and thelassemia, as a cure for other chronic
diseases it was still in the experimental stage.

Without thorough safety measures, stem cell therapy could endanger
patients. There was a higher risk of infection and resistance to the new
cells.

Critics also question if it is ethical, because no laws governing the
use of stem cells have been laid down.

Vichai Chokewiwat, who chairs the Southeast Asian Medical Ethics
Foundation, conceded there was a grey line between stem cell experiments
and medical treatment in Thailand because there was no clear legal line
between stem cell research and treatment.

It was essential that doctors heed the Helsinki Declaration on medical
ethics and human experimentation, which says patients as consumers must
be aware of all health risks, said Dr Vichai.

Although the Medical Services Department has set up a committee to draft
regulations on the use of stem cells for research, the task is still far
from complete. Nothing has been done since the first hearing earlier
this year, he said.

Moreover, the draft regulation does not cover stem cell therapy in
hospitals because the issue should be considered by each hospital's
ethics committee.

Dr Vichai said the Medical Council and the Medical Registration Division
should be more responsible in taking care of patients' interests when
there is no law to regulate stem cell use.

''The Public Health Ministry has all the essential bodies to take care
of the business. For example, the Medical Council is responsible for
doctors' actions and medical ethics, while the Medical Registration
Division is tasked with dealing with hospital malpractice.

''It all depends how much effort they are willing to put into it,'' he
said.

Dr Teerawat Hemachuta, of Chulalongkorn University's faculty of
medicine, said health bodies need to draw up measures to guard against
abuse of stem cell research. He claimed some patients treated with stem
cells felt better during the first phase of treatment, but their
condition later deteriorated and in some cases they even died.

''Some medical researchers worry that any controls on stem cell research
and study will hinder advancement in the technology,'' he said.

''In fact, there are some research projects that practically abuse
patients. Such unethical stem cell research could backfire on national
medical science in the long run.

''That's why laws and regulations on stem cell use are urgently needed
in this country.''

Sawaeng Boonchalermvipas, an expert on medical law at Thammasat
University, said in the absence of specific regulations on stem cell
therapy, health agencies should apply the Medical Council's regulation
regarding human organ transplants to stem cell research and treatment.

Patients and their relatives should realise that any cell treatment is
still in a preliminary stage here, he said. Commercial stem cell therapy
was considered ''fraudulent business'' under Article 341 of the Criminal
Act.

''Both the law and medical ethics are equally important to doctors when
it comes to the stem cell issue,'' said Mr Sawaeng.

''Patients' lives should not be put at risk by unethical medical
practices.''

Tassanee Nanudorn, editor of Smart Buy magazine run by the
non-governmental organisation Consumer Thai, said a lack of expertise in
the field further adds to the problems inherent to stem cell
exploitation.

Apart from the need to speed up passage of laws and regulations, the
public should also be equipped with facts and information about stem
cell technology.

Only through knowledge could they protect their own interests and not be
easily misled by mushrooming advertising about the benefits of stem cell
treatment.

''Thai consumers are at risk of becoming the victims of medical hype
because of the increase in stem cell therapy and stem cell banks at
private and state hospitals without proper controls and experts to
explain the pros and cons,'' she said.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Y! Messenger

Group get-together

Host a free online

conference on IM.

Yahoo! Groups

Going Green

Share your passion

for the planet.

Wellness Spot

on Yahoo! Groups

A resource for living

the Curves lifestyle.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Recent Posts