Another Breakthrough for Adult Stem Cells

By Bob Ellis on September 8th, 2009

Arches at Stanford University (Credit: Fred Hsu)

Arches at Stanford University (Credit: Fred Hsu)

Stanford University researchers say they have successfully transformed fat cells into an embryonic-like state which makes it possible to change them into other forms of tissue cells which can be used to treat various injuries and illnesses.

From the Christian Post:

Though the scientists say it’s too soon to use excess fat to cure diseases, it could, in theory, allow people to grow personalized replacement parts for ailing organs as many stem cell researchers are seeking to do.

“Imagine if we could isolate fat cells from a patient with some type of congenital cardiac disease,” said cardiologist Joseph Wu, senior author of the paper published in Monday’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“We could then differentiate them into cardiac cells, study how they respond to different drugs or stimuli and see how they compare to normal cells. This would be a great advance,” he reported, according to the Stanford University Medical Center.

Furthermore, because the “induced pluripotent stem cells” don’t come from embryos, their utilization would sidestep the controversy that surrounds embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos.

Those who insist on the right–and taxpayer funding–to destroy innocent human life in pursuit of embryonic stem cell research are akin to medieval alchemists who continue to insist that they can turn lead into gold (if they can just get the taxpayers to fork over some more gold).

They not only doggedly pursue something that is unlikely to produce significant results (due to the problems of tissue rejection and tumor generation inherent in embryonic stem cell therapy), they don’t even realize they are trying to ride an obsolete vehicle to no where.  Adult stem cell research has already produced between 70 and 80 successful therapies, and successes like this one in making adult stem cells act like embryonic ones continue to expose the folly of this course of action.

Of course, if they can continue to successfully separate the American taxpayer from more of his money to pay for their obsolete research, why should they stop? After all, what’s some destroyed human life when there are research grants and money for bio-materials to be obtained?

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: ,

  • Julien
    Dear Bob Ellis,

    I think you might have missed the point of this discovery that was published yesterday in PNAS "Feeder-free derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells from adult human adipose stem cells" by Sun et al.
    In this article they relate the use of adult stem cells (isolated from the fat of patients) to produce induced pluripotent stem cells, that are very close to human embryonic stem cells. That is to say fat adult stem cells could be efficiently reprogrammed into a pluripotent state, close to the pluripotent state of human embryonic stem cells. Then differentiation protocols can allow the production of tissues of the human body such as muscles, neurons...from these induced pluripotent stem cells.

    Although the use of human embryos to produce embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can be discussed, you nevertheless have to realize that it is the advances made in the understanding of embryonic stem cells in the mouse and the human that have allowed the development of reprogramming protocols that currently relieve the need of an human embryo (or cloned embryo) to produce patient derived embryonic stem cell lines.

    Adult stem cells can be indeed interesting for some therapies, however they have never taugh us how to induce pluripotency from a differentiated cells (that is to say turn whatever cell of your body into an embryonic stem cell lines, without the need to go through the destruction of embryos). These lessons were only taugh by the study of human and mouse ESCs.

    So before condemning to quickly embyonic stem cell research, please be aware that it has actually provided a wonderful tool to avoid destruction of embryos in order to generate patient derived ESCs.

    Sincerely yours,
    Julien.
  • No, I didn't miss anything important at all. Apparently you, however, missed the point of what I wrote.

    I'll recap: human ESC destroys an innocent human life (which is morally reprehensible) and has problems (tumor generation and tissue rejection) that adult stem cell therapy does not.

    Therefore, there is every reason to pursue adult stem cell research and every reason to stop destroying innocent human life with human ESC.

    I hope this helps.
  • Julien
    If you reject human embryonic stem cell research, which is your right, then you should be consistent with yourself, and also reject all the advances that came from research made with hESC: consequently, you should also reject induced pluripotent stem cells, and the article that your have presented here.
  • Newsflash: induced pluripotent stem cells are NOT embryonic stem cells (see my previous comment).
  • Julien
    Certainly, induced pluripotent stem cells are not embryonic stem cells. They do not require an embryo to be generated.
    However, their discovery could NOT have been possible without the results of years of research on human and mouse embryonic stem cells.
    So study on hESC and mESC were an indispensable prerequisite before any induced pluripotent cell lines could be produced.

    So how can you blame hESC and mESC research and at the same time explain how great are induced pluripotent stem cells, when these latter could not have been created without work on hESC and mESC?
  • How thick are you, Julien? I'm getting tired of wasting my breath on a death-culture Koolaid drinker like yourself.

    As you yourself pointed out, animal research has been done with embryonic stem cells. Here's the kicker: animals aren't human beings, and human beings aren't animals. Killing an animal is...well, killing an animal. Killing an innocent human being is murder. Does that click at all with you?

    You seem so infatuated with this hopeless line of research (human experimentation, really) that you can't even come close to even acknowledging the immorality and inhumanity of it.

    Not only is it highly impractical, it is ghastly and morally reprehensible to destroy innocent human life for the sake of experiments. I hope someday the light will come on and you can come to terms with this.
  • Julien
    Dear Bob,

    You maybe lack the scientific knowledge to fully understant this, still I am going to try to explain it:
    Mouse embryonic stem cells, and Human embryonic stem cells are two very different systems.
    If induced pluripotency was first developped in the Mouse, no application to human could have existed without the previous knowledge of HOW to maintain embryonic stem cells in human.
    Therefore, it changes nothing to what I said previously: researches with human ES were indeed indispensable to obtain induced pluripotent stem cells from human adult stem cells (or any other cells from an adult actually).
  • I don't lack the scientific knowledge to understand the difference between humans and mice, but apparently you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in facing either the practical hurdles of ESC, or, more importantly, the tremendous moral pitfalls of destroying innocent human life.

    I've wasted enough time on your dark soul, and can only hope the light comes on for you before it's eternally too late.
  • Julien
    alright then: there is indeed no interest in pursuing the discussion with you. Readers who might be interested will make their own conclusions from our little chat.

    Since your opinion is not going to affect my current professional life in anyway, I was not trying to convert you to hESC research, but wanted to see how you resolved the intellectual conflict I have mentionned in my previous posts.
    Well I have my answer.

    Thank for your patience in replying me though, and for not having deleted any of my posts. I won't bother you anymore.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob I understand where you both are coming from, but don't understand why you avoided Julien's point or question to you. You keep saying that ESCR has provided nothing to the advancement of stem cell research. The truth is without the reseach done on ESC, the current status if adult stem cell research would be impossible.
    I think your moral argument is correct, but you can not say that ESCR has contributed nothung to the advancement of the whole field. Its contribution so far has been immense in the basic understanding of how to get adult stem cells to act similiar to the embryonic pluripotent lines
    I think the corrcet way to put it is that destroying embryos for scientific research is wrong, but the research done on ESC has allowed the field of adult stem cell research to expand immeasureably. That doesn't justify embryo destruction however.
  • I didn't avoid Julien's question. I merely assumed an absolute minimum capacity for moral cognizance and reason. I know, I know; in today's thoroughly screwed-up world, that's asking too much of some people, but I just can't help it. I refuse to willingly cater to the lowest common denominator.

    Let me be as clear as I can be, because I'm a "cut to the chase" kinda guy.

    Human ESC research should not under any circumstances be carried on as long as it destroys innocent human life--which is does. Period.

    While human and animal genetic material is different, stem cells in both act in pluripotent and totipotent manners. All that we need to learn about these properties can be gleaned using animal subjects. Anything that cannot be learned from animal specimens (which should be very little) that might possibly be learned from human specimens is simply something we should do without. We could learn a lot about science and biology by ripping apart living human beings in a lab...but most of us realize that is morally unacceptable. Unfortunately some of us can't seem to grasp that it is STILL immoral to destroy human life, even if it can't look you in the eye as you destroy it.

    There is knowledge to be gleaned from pretty much every single act that human beings can possibly perform. From a totally amoral perspective, any act can be justified for its information value.

    However, anyone with a moderately functional moral compass on up realizes moral considerations--especially the destruction of innocent human life--trump practical and intellectual benefits. There is therefore nothing to be gained by an academic examination of real or potential gains from a procedure that (a) has an alternative and (b) ethical considerations dictate should not be performed in the first place.

    The fact that some people seem to be utterly oblivious to this is vexing and a pathetic indictment on the low state of society.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Again, no argument from me about the unethical aspects of ESCR. I don't think because it is morally repugnant that the truth of it's benefit to ASCR should not be made known. It is simply the truth and the history of this type of research.
    Some are concerned that even mentioning this truth might somehow lead others to justify it's use. The truth is never bad no matter how distasteful. I think a great teaching lesson rests here in telling young people that good actions can be learned from not so good origins and we always need to be watchful of every initial action we take.
    The Germans are just now realizing that really owning up to the Haulocost has an enormous upside to it.Their youth needs to know it all.
    Academics will benefit from knowing that ESCR helps Adult Stem Cell Research, beause they are still working on animal embryonic lines to help further adult stem cell research.No. Tell the truth and tell it loudly and then do some real teaching. Minimizing the truth, no matter how repugnant it is, is never a good idea. The truth is always beneficial. Never anything to be minimized.
  • Yes, telling the unvarnished truth is a good thing.

    However, if the Germans had never gone down the dark path of human experiments, genocide, etc. then there would be no need for them to apologize and confess.

    Likewise, we should avoid the human experimentation (and destruction) of human ESC in order to keep our consciences clear.
  • brianrutledge
    Seems like hindsight is always 20/20
  • It usually is...but a lot of problems could be avoided by thinking ahead and applying a few good principles.
  • Julien
    The discovery you report is actually NOT an adult stem cell based therapy, because it uses induced pluripotent stem cells (fat adult stem cells are changed into embryonic-like stem cells before differentiation into any tissue you want). The choice of using adult stem cells to produce induced pluripotent stem cells was only motivated because of the ease to obtain fat stem cells, and their facility to be changed into embronic-like stem cells.

    Induced pluripotent stem cells in the Mouse and Human have only been made possible thanks to the study of embryonic stem cells from Mouse and Human.

    Except for the tissue rejection, which is eliminated with patient derived induced pluripotent stem cells, tumor generation issues remain similar in the therapy you presented here.

    Hope it will help you to understand.
  • Yes it WAS adult stem cell research. Think about it: embryonic-like is not the same thing as "embryonic." They behaved in a manner similar to some embryonic stem cells, but the were NOT obtained from human embryos.

    Do you understand that induced pluripotent stem cells are NOT from human embryos?

    Do you understand that harvesting stem cells from human embryos DESTROYS innocent human life?

    If you can grasp these fundamental facts about the issue, perhaps it will help you understand why ESC research is both unnecessary and immoral.
  • DCM
    Adult stem cell research keeps producing valuable results. Embryonic stem cell research keeps producing no results. How hard is that to understand? WHY IS THERE EVEN ANY DEBATE ABOUT THIS?!

    Those who push for ESCR are more people who (1) are being dishonest with you; and (2) are unworthy of your support. Wake up.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »