First – as shown by Leonard Hayflick in the 60ies – there is a finite number of cell divisions that can occur without the resultant cell degenerating and fx. turning cancerous. In Hayflicks cultures it was 40-45 times. It is likely that some are genetical deficicient, so the number is much lower. This can be one of the reasons for cancers or other diseases hitting people before their “use by date” has arrived. An appendage to the DNA has been identified as the main? controller in this respect. That this is a problem can be seen in the short life of “Dolly the sheep” – where a.f.a.I.k they did not compensate for this.

The other major problem is immunologic. Each cell – apart from identical twins – is immunological different from any cell derived from another individual. This can be minimized, but NEVER eliminated.

Embryonic stem cells used in clinical experiments are different from the person they get implanted in. Hence the dismal results from the use of stem cells in among others parkinsons disease.

This new research may eventually lead to better results without the problems noted playing a role. – and the ethical issues will be relegated to the question of how much we should interfere in the natural course of life – a much simpler and hopefully easier case for discussion.

peace

Hejde

Now let’s just hope this turns out to be a genuine result. This wouldn’t be the first time some trumpeted about a great breakthrough in stem cells, only to have it turn out to be nothing.

But I think if you read Bottums again you’ll find that his target was not so much the folks involved in doing research itself as folks like the editorial staff at the NYT whose pale enthusiasm for other uses of genetic science – as genetically enhanced crops, for example – does not match their ardor for human embryo research. He postulates their enthusiasm for the latter may be tied to their position on abortion.

As I said, I think perhaps we’ll see if he’s right.

However, as someone who did support embryonic stem cell research, I resent Bottums’ claim that it was all just a sham to protect abortion rights. The embryos used for that research were going to be destroyed one way or another — none of them was destined to be born. Is it not better to at least derive some good from them, and perhaps make some people’s lives better? And is that not enough reason to support that research?

Bottums is essentially making an ad hominem attack on his opponents by questioning their motives, instead of addressing their arguments. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, on the same level as claiming that the Iraq war was ginned up to enrich Halliburton or “for the oil.”

Lee, I, too, am sad to hear about your father. The sort of hope this announcement brings may be too late for him, but others may well benefit.

What encourages me about this news (btw, there was an independent team here in Madison, Wisconsin) is that people suffering from Multiple Sclerosis (as I do) have another ray of hope. I advocate the State Legislature on behalf of the many in this State suffering from MS. Stem cells hold promise for us, but, like Lee’s father, we likely won’t see a cure anytime soon.