Subject to Change

Had I blogged about the developments stem cell research yesterday I would have been on the cutting edge. Instead, I watched Hostel II. So, now I’m getting at this a little late.

If this discovery truly does duplicate or nearly duplicate embryonic stem cells it’s going to separate the wheat from the chaff on the whole stem cell debate. Both sides of the aisle are going to have to finally show their true colors.

The truly honest liberals will embrace this discovery as the ultimate in compromise. The extreme left side of the debate will be forced to admit that pushing embryonic stem cell research really was all about legitimizing abortion, or they will find themselves arguing in the face of science. That would be the ultimate irony: liberals arguing against conventional wisdom and scientific consensus. As I’ve been reading the blogs on this subject, the seeds of doubt are already being planted. Let’s hope they’re wrong, embarrassingly wrong.

For me, watching the conservative reaction will be more interesting. I’ve been extremely disappointed with the response from the right to the stem cell debate. In the last election cycle conservatives allowed the left to define the issue, and they failed to differentiate stem cell research from embryonic stem cell research. With this new development, we’ll find out who was doing it on purpose. There are some on the right side of the aisle who are opposed to all stem cell research, period. They fear that it’ll lead to human cloning, or dogs and cats living together.

It will be a relief to finally see the cook fringe exposed on both sides of this issue. Let’s stop playing politics and cure some damn diseases.

A new stem cell treatment enhances breasts, using a woman’s own tissue.

Gosh darn it, if ESC advocates are right, we might not have had to wait so long! I’m hopping on the ESC bandwagon right now, because penile enhancements can’t be too far off.

Note to Spammers: Only I (and my welcomed guests) may say “penile enhancements” on this blog. How do you like them apples?

In reply to my last post on stem cell research, Tim Rock wrote:

Come on, Aaron. I’ve never heard a liberal say that cord blood is not as good. That’s just silly hyperbole.

I agree, though, that it doesn’t make sense that cord blood isn’t automatically saved.

Also, it’s never been about promoting abortion to promote cures. That’s ridiculous. No one is that callous. I’d have to see an actual quote to believe it.

Tim is right, no one is openly admitting that this is a debate over abortion. That’s something you need to infer from the tactics of the individuals and organizations involved. But, I have heard someone promoting one type of stem cell over another, I just couldn’t remember who.

Within a few minutes of searching, I found a number of claims that adult stem cells are “better.” One claim was that embryonic stem cells have not, as yet, been used to cure any diseases. But, adult stem cells have.

The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically—minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.

This proves my point, that in order to politicize the issue people will claim that one type of stem cell is “better” than another. But, I needed to find the spin from the other side. For that, I found a site belonging to an organization that might benefit from ESC research dollars.

For many years, scientists have conducted studies to determine whether the stem cells in adult tissue have the same developmental capability as embryonic stem cells. The general consensus is that adult stem cells seem to be less versatile. Scientists think that embryonic stem cells have a much greater utility and potential than the adult stem cells, because embryonic stem cells may develop into virtually every type of cell in the human body. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, may only be able to develop into a limited number of cell types. Embryonic stem cells also continue to divide indefinitely when placed in culture, while this may not be the case for adult stem cells and this would reduce their capacity to form new cell types. Both adult and embryonic stem cell research should continue simultaneously as they are both critical to our understanding of the etiology, progression and treatment of disease.

But, I still wanted to know where I first heard someone say that embryonic stem cells are “better.” Suddenly, I remembered that it was the Greek god of ESC himself, Michael J. Fox, in this interview. Sorry, you’ll need to wait around for 6 minutes and 30 seconds and 11 minutes 40 seconds.

The moral of the story:

My message to Tim, and others, is to watch the debate over the newly discovered source of stem cells (amniotic fluid and placentas). Early scientific claims say that these stem cells show as much or more promise than even embryonic stem cells.

Professor Malcolm Alison, a stem cell expert from the University of London, said the researchers had found a new, ethically-acceptable source of stem cells that are at least as versatile as the much-feted embryonic stem cells.

‘It is a readily available source and an attractive source that would otherwise be thrown away,’ said Prof Alison. ‘They appear to be at least as malleable as embryonic stem cells but without all the ethical baggage.’

I highly recommend that you question the motives of anyone trying to discredit the usefulness of amniotic stem cells before you blindly accept their claim.

On another note:

I would like to respond with my opinions on the argument over which type of stem cell is “better,” but this post is already too long. Perhaps later this week I’ll bring it back up again.

Elliot thinks that we’ve found a way to end the stem cell debate:

This is very exciting news. It seems some scientests have succeeded in isolating functional stem cells from placentas.

How cool would it be if common afterbirth could lead to a rebirth of possibilities for human stem cells WITHOUT the ethical problems inherent in harvesting the cells from human embyros?

Sadly, I had to crush his dreams:

Don’t get your hopes up. Cord blood is already supposed to be an alternative.

The liberals don’t like cord blood because they say it’s not as good. What they really mean is it’s not free. Cord blood donation costs money and I know from experience that it’s hard to find a place that will accept it.

The other thing the liberals don’t see is that it’s probably just as expensive to preserve and transport an aborted fetus. You’re probably not going to get much of value out of the dumpster behind Planned Parenthood.

Kevin gets what I meant:

Personally, I’ve long thought the stem cells debate is really an extension of the abortion debate. As long as the public doesn’t think there are other sources that stem cells can be obtained, the more accepting abortion will ‘become’ for society.

After all, if the public believes that something positive — potential cures to diseases — can come from the horror of killing the unborn; it becomes less of a moral hang-up to the American Public.

As I said on the last podcast, this is an issue where the Republicans need to get off their candy asses. There are many sources of stem cells. Rather than spending all our time bickering over the one we’re never going to agree on, let’s work on a way to facilitate the collection of stem cells from other sources.

For starters, it could be a whole lot easier to donate cord blood (and now placentas). We really don’t plan to keep ours after the birth. Why aren’t people knocking down my door to get it?