Moral Stem Cell Research Breakthrough

An instance of "learning how to turn lead into gold"--

Here's yet another stem cell breakthrough that doesn't destroy embryos:

By genetically manipulating human skin cells, scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a separate team in Japan were able to reprogram those cells to act like embryonic stem cells without the need of using human embryos.

If these new cells truly do have all the beneficial qualities of embryonic stem cells without hidden hazards, it could pave the way to therapies that do not raise the moral concerns associated with destroying embryos or therapeutic cloning. At the same time, the new approach could avoid problems of immune rejection because the cells could be matched to the DNA of the patient.

"This is truly the Holy Grail - to be able to take a few cells from a patient - say a cheek swab or few skin cells - and turn them into stem cells in the laboratory," said Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer with Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold.

"If perfected, there will no longer be any need for human eggs, or any of the controversy associated with destroying embryos."

This sounds extremely promising.

I trust that phrases like, "turn lead into gold" and "truly the Holy Grail" aren't bandied about recklessly.

Of course, EMBRYONIC stem cell proponents have tossed the obligatory wet blanket tossed on the breakthrough.

But Lanza and other scientists not associated with research said there are major caveats that must be addressed. And there was a danger that scientists might abandon the contentious field of embryonic stem cell research, wiping out work on promising therapies, he said.

As with many new findings, there are caveats that need attention.

The part about the DANGER of scientists abandoning the "contentious field of embryonic stem cell research" seems very political.

Why would scientists continue to destroy embryos for therapies if it would be totally unnecessary, if there would be a way to avoid the destruction of life?

These scientists remind me of pro-abortion supporters, the ones clinging to partial birth abortion as a supposedly necessary procedure.

Some of the article reads like propaganda for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

...So far, no one has treated using embryonic stem cells. Part of that may be due to federal restrictions for funding involving embryonic stem cells that has limited research in the field.

Indeed, Thomson and other have complained that the ethical debate surrounding the use of embryos had limited research in the field.

"The political controversy set the field back four or five years," Thomson said.

The stigma surrounding the use of embryos caused many young scientists to shy away from the field, he said.

What's the point?

Ethics shouldn't be considered?

This isn't Nazi Germany. There are ethical limits to medical experimentation.

Still, even the lib media can't deny the positive nature of the study's findings.

...The new genetically modified cells had many of the features of embryonic stem cells, including pluripotency, or the ability to become any of the 220 cell types in the human body.

"These induced cells do all the things embryonic stem cells do," said UW Thomson, senior author of the paper. "It is something that can proliferate forever and form every cell in the body. The big question will be, are they normal cells or funny mutations?"

At this point, however, "These really do appear to be the cells that give rise to everything."

In addition to eventually being able to use the cells as replacement cells, Thomson said researchers might be able to figure out ways to use similar processes to induce damaged or diseased cells in the body to repair themselves.

...Thomson said much more research needs to be done using this approach, and it could take a couple years before it is certain that the new cells work the same way as embryonic stem cells. He said it is premature for scientists to step away from ongoing embryonic stem cell research.

Still, he added, "I believe this is the beginning of a great change. This changes things in a big way. We started a field (in 1998). Now we might have come up with the best thing to go on to. It creates a nice book end to 10 years of controversy."

UW's findings are published in the journal Science.

The Japanese researchers published their findings in the journal Cell.