WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
Marvin Olasky offers two cheers for John Calvin on the Reformer's 500th birthday. 
Stem cell holy grail
Scientists have discovered how to turn adult human skin cells into stem cells and then into heart, brain and bone tissue, and they have done it without using human eggs or embryos.
Researchers at Kyoto University and the University of Wisconsin announced the advance today, and it has breathtaking implications for the future of medical research and the bioethics debate. Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technologies, called the discovery “the holy grail. It’s like turning lead into gold.”
Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University first tested the technique – called somatic cell dedifferentiation – when he turned mice skin cells into stem cells last year. The same technique works with human cells. Scientists insert four genes into the skin cells, turning the cells into blank slates that they can then transform into other cell types like heart, brain and bone. Dr. James Thomson said in every test, the reprogrammed cells behaved just like human embryonic stem cells.
The technique has its drawbacks. As with embryonic stem cells, there is a risk that the cells will become cancerous, but scientists are optimistic that they can overcome this. The technique also has some marked advantages: Using a flake of skin is cheaper than using a fertilized human egg, the new cells are tailor-made for the donor, and the technique is not hampered by ethical controversy like human cloning or embryonic stem cell research. Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow of bioethics at Discovery Institute, told WoW the breakthrough undercuts the drive towards human cloning because it “gives scientists everything they said they wanted, without the moral baggage.”
The news comes days after Professor Ian Wilmut, scientific daddy to cloned sheep Dolly, turned his back on therapeutic human cloning and announced that he was pursuing research in the new technique, calling it not only more practical but also more socially acceptable.
back to top36 Comments to “Stem cell holy grail”
If this works, then it sonds like a great opportunity to reduce the cost of stem cells.
Of course this also has an interesting side effect: do we want every skin cell to be capable of developing into an individual human?
What would it mean to the concept of human if every single cell could in principal produce a clone of us?
Report comment to moderator
And to think, all this time the godless scientists have been telling us we needed embryonic stem cells . . .
Report comment to moderator
The pro abortion group will come up with some objection to this.
Report comment to moderator
We might expect more research like this to confirm that we are not confined to using technology immorally. We can, through creativity and virtues like patience, use technology to our advantage without destroying ourselves in the process. Or, becoming rude and irresponsible with each other along the way. Many of our arguments about technology lie in our impatience and unwillingness to do the work that is necessary to overcome hurdles that, for the moment, seem insurmountable. Constructive debate(an important part of scientific vetting) takes time but is good because it helps to applying technology wisely. How much poorer would we be if the Government hastily jumped in on every new technology by funding it “before its time.” George Bush has been proven right to exercise restraint in the matter of stem cell research. It was motivation for scientists to explore alternatives that can be sustained longer and better in the society as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 3,
Right now this research seems to be limited by:
1) confirmation that these cells are indeed the equivalend of embryonic stem cells: more replicatioon is required
2) that the viruses used to to insert the material to dedifferentiate the cells is afe
etc.
This is very promising, but the research does not appear to be completed yet.
Report comment to moderator
God is good.
Report comment to moderator
It is a well known fact that all successes have been with adult stem cells and none, zero, nil, nada, zilch with embryonic stem cells. And here we have another …
Report comment to moderator
xion post 7,
because of course the legal ability to test therapeutic uses of embryonic stem cells is only just now being approved:
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/embryonic-stem-cell-reserach-heads-for-fda-approval/
It is tough getting research results before you are allowed to do the research.
Which I at times feel may be the point: there seems to be an effort to ensure that the research never occurs so that it can be argued that embryonic stem cells have never shown therapeutic use: something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Musing in #8 about the “self-fulfilling prophecy” effort underway. For more evidence, look at this statement in the original post: As with embryonic stem cells, there is a risk that the cells will become cancerous, but scientists are optimistic that they can overcome this.
Funny how when they’re talking about embryonic stem cells, the possibility of the cells becoming cancerous is a profound flaw… someone in an earlier thread said ESC leads to “horrors scientists refuse to describe” or some nonsense like that.
But if it’s adult cells, then sure, science’ll probably solve it.
All that said, I’ll be glad if this discovery means research can go forward without the ethical debate. But the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-ESC side is appalling.
Report comment to moderator
From #1:
“Of course this also has an interesting side effect: do we want every skin cell to be capable of developing into an individual human?
What would it mean to the concept of human if every single cell could in principal produce a clone of us?”
What do you mean by this? I thought the point of this technology was to use blanked-out skin cells to suppliment the cells of vital organs? Can you clarify for me?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, the British scientist, Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep, is abandoning cloning and decided to follow Yanamaka’s lead in to create human embryonic stem cells without using human eggs. When such an international class scientist makes a move like this, we may assume that recent developments anounced in Nature have real substance. Pro-Life scientists are encouraged by Yanamaka’s work for good reason.
Jody Bottum in a recent First Things piece, Embryonic Stem Cells and Those Pro-Science Pro-Lifers, has an incisive point that much of the hype surrounding embryonic stem-cell research had other motives:
But there were reasons for all the hype. I have long suspected that science, in the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, was simply a stalking-horse for something else. In fact, for two something-elses: a chance to discredit America’s religious believers and an opportunity to put yet another hedge around the legalization of abortion. After all, if our very health depends on the death of embryos, and we live in a culture that routinely destroys early human life in the laboratory, no grounds could exist for objecting to abortion.
Pro-Life scientists have good reason to be encouraged by recent developments in biology, though, as always in science, much work needs to be done before anything is conclusive.
Report comment to moderator
“But the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-ESC side is appalling.”
An embryo is a living, genetically distinct human being. That is an empirical observation, a settled fact of biology, not a theological interpretation. It is in the pro-ESC side’s circumlocutions to avoid that stark and simple fact with all its ethical and moral implications where truly apalling intellectual dishonesty runs rampant.
The pluripotentiality of these new cells does not require actual embryos and avoids the destruction of living human beings. It should be celebrated as an advance that breaks the moral impasse and allows ethical research to flourish.
Report comment to moderator
ah, but the only data our friend Musing is interested in, Ken, is that which supports his conclusions and muddies the intellectual waters even further.
Report comment to moderator
ken post 12,
but without a clear defintio of what is meant by human how do we say:
“An embryo is a living, genetically distinct human being. That is an empirical observation, a settled fact of biology, not a theological interpretation.”
I am still waiting for a clear defintion of what is meant by human so I can understand whether I agree with you or not.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 11,
but do you question my observation that:
1) the research on dedifferentiated stem cells is incomplete?
2) approval to perform therapeutic research using embryonic stems cells is only now finalizing approval?
Report comment to moderator
zanzibar post 1,
certainly.
I make the following observations:
1) a four cell structure of stem cells and a four cell balstocyst are to the best of my knowledge indistingusihable
2) we therefore seem to be perilously close to being able to create a fetus from any cell in our body (thik cloning if nothing else, but cloning from any cell)
Now if any cell in our body can in principal become a distinct human being, what are the theological implications?
Now you might be concerned about my use of the word distinct, but do consider identical twins.
In short, while we may not need embryos if this research pans out, and my guess is it will probably pan out but the work is not complete yet, we may avoid utilizing human embryos for this effort but in so doing we may confound the concept of embryo with arguably every cell in our body.
Report comment to moderator
Ken at #12, responding to me: “But the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-ESC side is appalling.”
An embryo is a living, genetically distinct human being. That is an empirical observation, a settled fact of biology, not a theological interpretation.
It is genetically distinct; whether it is a person is open to debate. But that is not the intellectual dishonesty I’m talking about.
Creating roadblocks to performing embryonic stem cell research and then turning around and criticizing it for not having shown much success is intellectually dishonest.
Using the possibility of cells turning cancerous as an argument against using embryonic cells, but then waving it off as a solvable problem when it adult cells in question is intellectually dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, the following are from a highly respected modern human embryology textbook makes clear that your logic chopping question as to when human life begins is meaningless in terms of ontogeny. I could cite several other textbooks on the same matter that make a similar point.
“It needs to be emphasized that life is continuous, as is also human life, so that the question, ‘When does (human) life begin?’ is meaningless in terms of ontogeny. Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2000), p. 8.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 18,
ah but I did not ask about life per se, the question is human.
A skin cell is alive. Is it human?
I am simply asking for a clear definition of what is meant by human and I find it fascinating that those who oppose stem cell research are totally unwilling to provide a definition.
My sense is that either:
1) they do not now
or
2) they are afraid of admitting what it is
Now I do find that on complex questions, if we do not have clear and accepted defintions, the argument tends to become very tangled.
Am I to conclude that those against embryonic stem cell research work want a tanlged argument?
Report comment to moderator
A skin cell alive is it human No. It’s a skin cell. A fertilized human egg has all the potential qualities necessary for human life. Occam’s razor would be a salutary principle to apply to this silly debate.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 20,
so the key is “all the potential qualities necessary to become human life”.
Did I read you correctly?
Report comment to moderator
yes, Musing you read that correctly. As the textbook remarked, “a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
A perfect storm of bad news for Musing, the Iraq War is going well, good news for pro-life stem cell research, and we’re coming up on the religious days of Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 22,
and so continuing, what about cloning? I am assuming that a cloned fetus would still be considered human, since it would have the full potential for human life.
Am I correct here?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, human cloning gets into the hypothetical subject of eugenics. This presently strictly illegal process would happen only if the creepier of the “eugenic” biologists get their way, as happened in Germany back in the war years. It is distinctly not a subject for civilized conversation or even musing.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 24,
actually no, human cloning appears to have already occurred as a result of certain n vitro fertilization resulting in twins.
So not only is it tehcnically feasible, I suggest that it has already most probably occurred.
So I reask the question.
I do find it odd that those who hold human life as so sacred seem very timid about trying to define what human life is.
And of course without good definitions, difficult questions often get bogged down in misunderstandings.
And so your answer?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I prefer not to get involved in logic chopping mind games.
Happy Thanksgiving
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 24,
but of course we can continue and it may save time.
When you look at twinning in in vitro fertilization and you compare the blastocysts from the twinning with embryonic stem cell beginnings, it would seem that there is no objective difference: we take the blastocyst to make the stem cells.
So I will of course next ask if embryonic stem cells are potential humans?
And then we look at dedifferentiating skin cells, and I will ask if these stem cells are therefore potential humans?
And you do see where this leads.
Of course, as you are demonstrating, those against stem embryonic stem cell research, by refusing to akcnowledge the difficulty in defining what is the quality of human, leave the questions posed by these new technologies totally unaswered.
And of course, I doubt that anyone, including the most ardent right to life proponents, will argue that a skin cell is a potential human.
But of course, then I run the argument in reverse.
Nope, at some poiont one needs to explicitly answer this question with an operationlly useful definition.
I am awaiting yours.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I prefer not to get involved in logic chopping mind games.
Ah, but that’s all Musing ever does, Peter. It’s pointless to try to debate with someone who is so obviously confused and confusing.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 26,
but of course in strongly supporting dedifferentiating research you are encouraging a process which would appear to inevitably bring this question to the fore.
Not dealing with the question does not make it go away.
So you can perhaps start dealing with it now, and while you are at it provide a sound philosophical foundation to the pro-life arguments, or science would appear to be rerady to nuyllify your philosophical foundation.
Its a pay me now or pay me latter problem: and the costs latter would appear to be very high.
Report comment to moderator
oukast post 28,
and I am truly amazed at how difficult it appears to be for pro-life supported to be able to clearly define in an objectvie manner what they mean by human life.
Don’t you find it a bit odd that they have trouble defining the philosophical concept which seems to be at center to what appear to be some of their core beliefs?
Report comment to moderator
“I do find it odd that those who hold human life as so sacred seem very timid about trying to define what human life is.”
You may find our timidity odd, but I find a lack of timidity scary. Your argument asks us to continually push the definition of the human being to such unworkable microscopic levels that we dare not enter without some trepidation. Especially considering the fact that we could not get our president to stop abortion at the third trimester, or to outlaw the partial birth abortion, otherwise known as yanking out a baby and crushing it’s skull.
As long as we are turning arguments around, let’s ask a pregnant mother, one who wants to keep her baby, where human life begins. What if her husband doesn’t want it? What definition would she use to convince her husband her child was human?
Those who advocate for abortion repeatedly defend a woman’s right to chose, without much nuance to their arguments. But the debate isn’t over a woman’s right to chose; it concerns the question of when she will be allowed to make her choice alone. If she is having a wart removed, it’s her choice alone. When she is killing her baby, the law should not allow her to have the sole choice.
I believe that when a mother wants to keep her baby, she will not argue that her fetus is mere body tissue. And since women don’t know they are pregnant until they miss a period, the baby has been living for four to six weeks by the time it becomes apparent that she has a decision to make.
By the time she is aware of it, the egg has implanted itself to the uterine wall and chemical reactions have stopped her menstrual cycle. Again, if the mother wants to keep her baby, will she argue that the embryo is not yet a fetus — not yet a baby? Will she allow anyone to terminate the pregnancy?
Let’s turn to the father and ask him. Do you want this baby? What will be his response? Will he ask you, “What baby? It’s merely tissue.” I don’t think so. He knows, just like the mother knows, that the thing will eventually drip out of the vagina as a baby.
Again, the REAL decision of the mother is not whether to have a wart removed but whether to carry a baby to term. You can talk Latin all day and never really get at the real question. Do you want this baby or not?
Those who advocate for pro-life seem to understand this. It’s never been a question of when a piece of tissue becomes a human being. It’s always been a question of what to do about the inevitable.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 31,
excellent post, and you do indeed make the question quite clear:
1) you are not in favor of protecting human life
2) you are in favor of limiting the rights of the mother
I am asking a simple question which, given the speed of technology, will be with us shortly if it has not already occurred:
what is the clear definition of human which is valid no matter how the human came into existence.
The pro-life group appears to be hiding behind the flimsy hope that fertilization of an egg is the only way to make a fetus. We are already racing past this very limited model.
Report comment to moderator
The cells become cancerous. Wow, it’s a breakthrough!!!!
Report comment to moderator
what is the clear definition of human which is valid no matter how the human came into existence.
I would say that since you are asking the question, you are already cutting the bread too thin.
At the same time, many people have already given a very adequate answer, which makes sense in a theistic, teleological world-view. Human life begins at conception. We may need science to tell us the precise moment when this happens, but even without science the philosophical definition remains valid to those who affirm the idea that God created each thing in reality to have a design and that living things have a beginning and mature to an ultimate “telos” — a point of final maturity.
I think you want to ask whether a clone is human?
Report comment to moderator
roger post 34,
but of course no one has even provided a valid answer suitable for discussing even a clone, and clones are clearly within sight. and of course if yo look carefully at a four cell collection of embryonic stem cells, one is struck by an intersting observation on these cells: it would seem a straightforward, although perhaps difficult task, to develop embryonic stem cells into a fetus (amusingly it is highly probable that this has already been done).
It is, however, fascinating that pro-lifers can define that whihc they argue is most valuable and which the argue so hard that they are trying to protect.
It would seem a reasonable assumption that they are reacting emotionally without truly understanding what it is they are trying to protect.
Report comment to moderator
all those murders…
It didn’t get us anywhere, and worse, it was unneccisary.
Report comment to moderator