agentorange,

I wasn't referring to the sheep, simply to the comments of the sheep's creator, to indicate apparent procedural differences.

You said "What I am saying is this, if we can harvest growable stemcells from skin cells ....." This falls into the category of "adult stem cell research". And I, for one, am unclear as to the final product these two apparently different procedures actually end up producing. Do we end up with an actual viable embryo that would produce a living entity of the kind used (i.e. a mouse, a cat, a sheep, or a human), or do we end up with simply a non-viable (as to producing an actual living entity of it's kind) product that acts as a host for living simple stem cells that will then be used to create the actual cells that we need. You might think that there is a simple answer to this question, but I'm not sure it's so simple. Procedures devised by man oftentimes don't result in the expected outcome. Take Dolly the sheep for example. She was a clone, the idea is that she would be exactly the same as the original. And indeed she was born a sheep, but the truth was that she had all kinds of problems not found in the original.

With my medical background, I am somewhat more versed in the complexity of a living cell than the average citizen. There will no doubt need to be much more research before we actually do know the final outcome of what we are now producing. However, to answer your question, if we could produce a stem cell fully capable of retaining the capability to produce variable differentiated cells, without causing the destruction of a viable embryo, then I agree the benefit for treatment would be very significant. I just wish I could generate a more hopeful outlook on man's willingness to do so within a fully ethical construct.

Agent-
I see no current ethical issues in this. We would be dealing with skin cells which would be genetically altered to produce a medical cure without the destruction of an individuals life. I think some people might be initially afraid due to the phrase "embryonic-state" or some such phrase, but once Christians understand that it is used to describe the similar state of the cell and not an actual fertilized embryo (early life form) it might be heralded as a God-send.

So much of this "cutting-edge" science is difficult to understand and make (ethical) judgement calls on when there is so little actually known.

GMG,

“The technique, pioneered by Professor Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University, has been shown in experiments with mice to revert skin cells back to an embryonic state.”

I had read about skin cells being converted into stem cells some time ago. Essentially all they are doing is taking the hosts cells (skin cells for instance) and genetically engineering them to act like embryonic cells, which can then be used to host embryonic stem cells. In such instances no embryo is being destroyed and so this should work for socially concerned pro-lifers.

I agree the original was on the sheep, howerver my point earlier still holds.What I am saying is this, if we can harvest growable stemcells from skin cells as was done in this experiment and eitherr no real embryo is destroyed or both the embyro survive and it produces medical value for others I don’t see any ethical dilema or concerns.

The question now also might be, will pro-lifers deem an embryotic cell that was converted from skin or other cells as actual life and therefore hold back further research?

agentorange

PART 2

I would guess that there is a confusion of terms here. "Embryonic" would refer to a stem cell in it's earlier stage, where it can then build itself into the specific type of cell needed. "Cell regression" was the term used for the Japanese study using stem cells from mouse skin cells; this article claims the use of "nuclear transfer" in taking those same skin cells from a mouse. I certainly could be wrong, but it appears that there has been a mix-up somewhere in the use of terminology. Newspeople aren't assumed to be knowledgable on all the subjects they report on.

Note that the article Muggleborn provided a link to describes the procedure as >> They took ordinary cells from the tails of the mice, transferred the nuclei from them into hollowed-out mouse eggs cells, and made clones of the mice. This process is called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or "therapeutic cloning". << This is not the same thing as taking a fertilized egg (embryo) and extracting a stem cell from it, thereby destroying the embryo. This describes taking an egg "casing" and exchanging content. An egg is not an embryo until fertilized, and the skin cell is not an embryo. Whatever term they use to describe the resultant product of an adult stem cell nucleus transferred into an egg casing does not describe the same thing as taking a viable naturally produced embryo and destroying it.

I would, however, be very interested in learning more details on exactly what is the nature of what is produced. I will not, however, rely on any news articles for that type of information. =)

agentorange

PART 1

>>>don't know if it was you or another person that was remarking on how embryonic stem cell research hasn't been fruitfull thus far. This is one study among others that contradicts that notion.<<<

Actually, not so. The original issues were about taking an actual human embryo versus a single cell structure, such as a skin cell, and extracting the stem cell component. One involves destroying an embryo (human life in it's beginning stages), the other involves destroying a skin cell. Quite a bit different. In addition, the only successes realized have been those using stem cells from sources OTHER than human embryos (or any type of "embryo").

Do you remember the article "Dolly Creater Ditches Cloning for Breakthrough Stem Cell Alternatives"? In part, it read:

Wilmut, (the scientist who cloned Dolly)......said he will abandon the nuclear transfer method to work on a technique developed in Japan called cell regression that he believes has a better potential for producing stem cells that could treat degenerative diseases.

The technique, pioneered by Professor Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University, has been shown in experiments with mice to revert skin cells back to an embryonic state.

"The work which was described from Japan of using a technique to change cells from a patient directly into stem cells without making an embryo has got so much more potential," said Wilmut in a BBC News report. "Even though it's only been described for the mouse, when we were considering which option to pursue, whether to clone or whether to copy the work in Japan, we decided to copy the work in Japan."

Yamanaka’s method is also “easier to accept socially,” said Wilumt, according to The Telegraph, because it suggests a way to create human embryo stem cells without the need for human eggs and without the need to create and destroy human cloned embryos.<<<

AgentOrange,

>> If the embryo is able to live on I don't see how it's ethically wrong as it's comparable as a person donating their plasma or blood for the welfare of another. <<

You’re right. The only problem is that at the moment, that scenario is hypothetical. The hope is that one day VERY soon, the best alternatives can be achieved without destroying the sanctity of human life along the way. And that’s what it really comes down to.

Preventing the “destruction” of human life is certainly the facet that gets the most attention, but the real goal is to maintain the dignity and God-given sanctity of human life, regard it as having infinite value, and prevent it from becoming a mere commodity.

I’m guessing that most of us would be hard pressed to find anything unscriptural about “sharing cells” at any stage of life.

GMG,

I don't know if it was you or another person that was remarking on how embryonic stem cell research hasn't been fruitfull thus far. This is one study among others that contradicts that notion.

Part of the reason why embyronic stem cells are prefered is b/c over the life time of an organism its DNA is copied over and over, resulting in more Teleomeric ends at the ends of chromosomes and therefore making them less viable.

The question is, if cloning adult stem cells and converting them into embyronic stem cells is performed, as was done in this case, and it allows both the embryo to live on and host embroynic cells to be harvested, what exactly are the ethical concerns if any? If the embyro is able to live on I don't see how it's ethically wrong as it's comparable as a person donating their plasma or blood for the welfare of another.

Thanks, I'll be watching for them. It might help if you give me some initials or something to identify the name I will see from your email, to be sure it doesn't get deleted as someone "unknown". We've gotten some pretty raunchy stuff through email, I'm sure you know about that kinda stuff.

GMG,

I figured something was up with the email. I did send you the story, and a follow-up, but I guess it never got to you. I'll contact star2 and ask her for the address, again.

Thanks for the link Muggles, went and read it and it did make it more understandable. Basically, they are creating embryonic structures, as opposed to using actual (in this case) mouse embryos. Definetly a difference, and yet.......wonder if they could fertilize it and actually produce a mouse?

Still waiting for a copy of one of your stories!! Star said she gave you my email. Haven't forgotten, I hope.

DannyPoo, that was my feeling also. I think some of the terms get confusing at times, probably just a mix-up on the writer's part. Hope they catch it and clarify the facts.

The article looks like it may have left out an important fact. Here's an article from Reuters, below:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23286620.htm

Notice the 3rd and 4th paragraphs under the 'Theraputic Cloning' subsection:
>> They took ordinary cells from the tails of the mice, transferred the nuclei from them into hollowed-out mouse eggs cells, and made clones of the mice. This process is called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or "therapeutic cloning". <<

>> The cloned embryos were harvested for their stem cells after a few days. The researchers grew these in the lab and coaxed them into becoming the so-called dopaminergic brains cells that are lost in Parkinson's. <<

So the cells used in the mice were ultimately, embryonic.

GMG, you are correct.

::begin article quote::
In their research, the scientists used skin cells from the tail of mice to generate dopamine brain cells, the neurons that are found missing in victims of Parkinson's disease.
::end article quote::

That would not be embryonic stem cells, that would be adult stem cells that have been altered. Not sure if the person writing the article understands the difference.

Something doesn't make sense here. If these people used skin cells from a mouse's tail to obtain stem cells for this procedure, then they did not use an embryo to obtain stem cells. So then, why do they say "A group of scientists claim that they have treated Parkinson's disease in mice by using cloned embryonic stem cells." ? Use of an adult stem cell, though it may be termed as having "embryonic type qualities", is still not an embryo.