New stem cell information

[Guest stevej]

This was posted at 1:30 August 22, 2005 on AP.

WASHINGTON - Harvard scientists announced they've discovered a way to fuse adult skin cells with embryonic stem cells, a promising and dramatic breakthrough that could lead to the creation of useful stem cells without first having to create and destroy human embryos.

Members of the research team were to discuss their findings Monday. Preliminary results of the potentially groundbreaking research were disclosed Sunday on the Science magazine web site.

The scientists said they were able to show in their early research that the fused cell "was reprogrammed to its embryonic state."

"If future experiments indicate that this reprogrammed state is retained after removing the embryonic stem cell DNA

Edited August 22, 2005 by stevej

[Guest stevej]

Wonders??? Is this such a hot topic no one wishes to comment or are we to concerned with war to look at other topics?

This is an issue that affects millions of folks including some on the boards. This type of stem cell research would eliminate the concerns of the use of unborn embryos. Why is no one getting on a band wagon about it?

[PwrInTheBld]

I'm not sure what to say except that I see alot of if, potentially, theoretically in the article.

Not sure what that means though and I'm not qualified with enough knowledge on stem cell research to debate about this new approach

I just know that I can not agree to using stem cells from preborn embryos.

[Guest stevej]

I'm not sure what to say except that I see alot of if, potentially, theoretically in the article.

Not sure what that means though and I'm not qualified with enough knowledge on stem cell research to debate about this new approach   

I just know that I can not agree to using stem cells from preborn embryos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you PwrInTheBlood. I am opposed to embrionic research as well.

I am just hopeful they will be able to make this new process work. They have had limited success using an individuals stem cells (an adult).

There are a lot of ifs, potential, and theoretical in this whole area of research.

Many people are holding on to any theory that might give them relief.

Thank you for responding!

Steve

[PwrInTheBld]

I think I would be for any advances in this field that could be made without taking a life first.

[Sojc]

I think I would be for any advances in this field that could be made without taking a life first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a common misconception among people opposed to embryonic stem cell research and post-fertilization contraception. The vast majority of embryos that are left alone, will never develop far enough to be born and have "a normal life". Most actually don't survive long enough for a pregnancy to be detected by anything other than high-tech means. The number of days in a woman's cycle when an egg can be fertilized is more than the number of days when the uterus is capable of implanting an embryo. So even in very young women, in whom a majority (but nowhere near all) of eggs are capable of producing a viable embryo, most fertilizations will not result in a baby. In older women the stats are overwhelmingly against a fertilized egg becoming a baby. In women over 40, 90% or more of eggs are defective and will not produce a viable embryo if fertilized. And the older women get, the more of them have more serious endometriosis and fibroids, that interfere with implantation on the rare occasions that a viable embryo lands in the uterus on a day when the uterus could otherwise enable the embryo to implant.

The embryos used in embryonic research are the same as the ones that are killed all the time naturally.

And I am not for abortion, which I think in most cases is wrong. There is a large difference with human life and potentially human life. Millions of potential human lives are destroyed every day naturally.

Edited August 29, 2005 by Sojc