Scientist Speaks in Rapid City on Stem Cell Research

By Bob Ellis on November 19th, 2009

Page 1 Page 2

Adult stem cell recipient Carol Franz, from Dr. Prentice's presentation (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

Adult stem cell recipient Carol Franz, from Dr. Prentice's presentation (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

Since then, dozens of successful therapies have been derived from adult stem cell research (the number is 73 or more), while there has not been a single successful treatment in humans from ESCR.  Ailments treated with adult stem cell therapy include diabetes, heart tissue regeneration, bone tissue, cartilage,  a trachea, sickle cell anemia, certain types of paralysis, and more.

Prentice said some 2,000 ongoing or finished clinical trials for various diseases treated with adult stem cells can be found at  Clinicaltrials.gov.

Stem Cell Research Facts also shows real-life stories of people who have been successfully treated for various symptoms and injuries.

During an interview before the luncheon, Dr. Prentice said that sometimes people claim that embryonic stem cell research “just needs more time” to show results, but this argument doesn’t hold up. Prentice said that research has been privately funded all along for years, despite the now-repealed ban on taxpayer funding for ESCR. President George W. Bush also allowed research on several specific lines of human embryos before President Barack Obama more fully lifted the ban earlier this year.

When asked about claims that some scientists have managed to extract embryonic stem cells from human embryos without destroying the embryos, Prentice said that while some scientists such as Dr. Richard Lanza and Dr. Young Chung have had some limited success in removing ESC from mice without destroying the embryos, it has not been done in human beings, and the success rate in mice is around 10 to 20 percent or less.

I also asked Dr. Prentice about the extraction of genetic material from human embryos often conducted at IVF clinics to check for genetic diseases.  He said, “The cells extracted by ‘embryo biopsy’ for genetic tests are taken several days before ESC form normally in the embryo. But again, that extraction damages many embryos, so I wouldn’t call that a successful or ethical way to obtain ESC.”

ASCR

From Dr. Prentice's presentation (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

So why are some in the scientific community so ardently supportive of ESCR when there are so many difficulties involved and so many successes already achieved with adult stem cells?

“Many scientists are not focused on helping patients, but rather on grant dollars, intellectual curiosity, and a race to be the ‘first’ to accomplish some experiment,” replied Prentice.

Dr. David Prentice is Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at Family Research Council. Up to July 2004 he had spent almost 20 years as Professor of Life Sciences, Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine.

He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Kansas, and was at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of Texas Medical School-Houston before joining Indiana State University, where he served as Acting Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences, Assistant Chair of Life Sciences, and was recognized with the University’s Distinguished Teaching Award and Distinguished Service Award.

Dr. Prentice is an internationally-recognized expert on stem cells and cloning, and has testified before the U.S. Congress, numerous state legislatures, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the President’s Council on Bioethics, European Parliament, British Parliament, Canadian Parliament, Australian Parliament, German Bundestag, French Senate, Swedish Parliament, the Vatican, and the United Nations.

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.

Page 1 Page 2

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

Pages: 1 2

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , ,

  • brianrutledge
    Bob Since you closed the last thread down, I must ask you one question. Since you claim that your God can change the current laws of nature like radioisotopic decay rates or even the force of gravity or the germ theory on a whim, doesn't that essentially invalidate ALL of science as we know it.Must we not even question the physics of bouyancy or electricity since they could change tomorrow ?
  • The laws of science are no more invalidated by God's infrequent, temporary and isolated suspension of those laws than are the operating parameters of, say, the Windows operating system.

    Unless the programmer who as access to suspend or change the program code actually does make a change to that code, you can always count on that programming to operate in specific ways under specific circumstances. And even this is not a perfect analogy, since God has rarely changed the laws of nature (if ever, on a permanent basis) since the curse brought by the Fall. God's interventions in and suspension of the laws of nature (e.g. the parting of the Red Sea, making the blind see, bringing the dead back to life) are more akin to the programmer who, having access to the source code of a program, temporarily overrides/cancels an error message, undeletes a deleted file, replaces corrupted code, or such.

    In other words, as I said at the beginning, except for rare interventions by the programmer, you can expect the laws of nature to function consistently in specific circumstances at all times without change.
  • brianrutledge
    Thank you Bob Then why would you expect that the laws of radioactive decay that we see today would be different in the past if there is rarely intervention in Gods laws ?Why should decay rates change if the other laws of nature don't (or could rarely) change as you stated ?
  • I'm not going to continue this thread any father here since it is off-topic for this article, but you seem to have missed that radiometric decay rates--like so many other laws--are not set in stone despite all other influences and circumstances. Those decay rates can be expected to be constant...unless some other force acts on them, just as some other force or principle is acting on the earth's magnetic field to cause it to drop over time. And, the circumstances I also outlined in the assumptions concerning radiometric dating, including the introduction of additional daughter material into the specimen or leeching of the daughter or parent element over time.
  • WXRGina
    So, does anyone in the world of "science" suppose that there are ANY moral limits on what should be researched? Perhaps Huxley's vision has come true, and we are indeed in a brave new world. In this world, what is moral and true is looked upon as backward and barbaric. True "science" must acknowledge the existence of the Master Creator, or else nothing will ultimately make sense.

    I will not get into a debate with anyone who does not even know "when life begins." Any student with an eighth grade education knows how the cow ate the cabbage when it comes to conception.

    Whether it's abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or even the recent story of a Swiss cosmetics company using fetal skin cells from an aborted baby in their skin cream (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI... ), this is all about barbarism at the basest level. Only those whose consciences have been seared beyond recognition would defend such wicked practices. A point I made in a letter to the editor published at WND is that, in the case of the aborted baby in the skin cream, it is basically cannibalism of a tiny baby's body to provide skin cream for vain people trying to fight the inevitable signs of aging.

    Adult stem cell research and therapy have proven to be wonderfully successful. Embryonic stem cell research has mostly "flopped," and for good reason. But, the reason that adult stem cell research is downplayed, while embryonic stem cell research is mega-hyped, is because the evil spirit powers that run the world desire more than anything to kill, steal and destroy as much of humanity as possible in the very short time they have remaining.

    "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Tim. 6:20







  • brianrutledge
    Gina,

    Was wondering if you could provide a list of these 'evil spirit powers that run the world' and desire to kill, steal and destroy humanity. I was wondering if it includes you and I who pay taxes, some of which goes to the NIH which determines where our tax dollars go to pay for some embryonic stem cell research.Seems like you would have to make a choice. Stand up for what you believe and refuse to contribute tax money which goes to this ' evil spirit power' research and face the legal consequences or contribute to this evil, thus becoming part of it, and keep paying taxes that go to human ESC research.You do have a choice
  • WXRGina
    "Was wondering if you could provide a list of these 'evil spirit powers that run the world' and desire to kill, steal and destroy humanity." - Brian

    Answer: Satan (the devil) and his demons, along with their human agents in high places of power.

    "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:11-12

    "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy:..." Here, in John 10:10, Jesus sums up the devil's "ministry." Jesus finishes the sentence with, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

    As for your points about how our tax dollars are used and our possible culpability because we pay taxes, I would say that our government has been confiscating our money and using it against our will for years, for all sorts of nefarious purposes to which we object. I can protest all I want to these creatures in Washington (and, believe me, I do), but they don't seem to listen very well.

    Your logic here, that I take part in embryonic stem cell research because my tax dollars may go to the NIH, is convoluted reasoning. By that same argument, you could say that I would be responsible for the overdose death of a crackhead who stole my wallet and used the money inside it to buy the drugs that killed him.
  • brianrutledge
    Gina If a crackhead steals your wallet to buy drugs-you had 'no choice' because it was taken when you turned your head. You do have 'a choice' about taxes that go to 'evil causes'. There are consequences,like jail time, but you still have a choice to follow your moral beliefs or pay taxes that support something you feel is evil and immoral. Religious people have stood up for their morals time immemorium and suffered much more than jail time.
  • WXRGina
    Brian, I heard your argument. But, I view the government as actually being that crackhead thief who steals my money. The only problem is that the government doesn't O.D., but continues to grow and thrive.

    The "catch" with refusing to pay taxes that go to the government, and thus, possibly to evil things like embryonic stem cell research and abortion, is that there are government taxes, not just on our incomes, but on EVERYTHING we purchase as well, whether you're talking about the grocery store, or the power company, or the telephone company, or the gas station, or you-name-it. There are government taxes embedded in EVERYTHING. These wicked maniacs even tax your DEATH, through your estate!

    So, your derisive assertion that Christians should "put their money where their mouth is," is at the very least, quite impractical, if we wish to live in America.

    A more logical solution would be to have leaders who are not inspired by hell, but that is not likely to happen before the end of this age.
  • brianrutledge
    Gina I didn't assert that all Christains not pay taxes, because I haven't heard your view at all from most that I know well. I can only comment on your stance.You are right in that many things are taxed that you simply have to pay to live in America. But you do have a choice in some, like federal income taxes. All I am saying is that if you really feel these taxes go to evil causes that go against your religious beliefs, you do have a choice not to contribute to some, like income tax. You have to decide what to do with your own convictions recognizing there could be repercussions
  • WXRGina
    Right! And, you're assuming that I don't already refuse to pay income taxes, aren't you?

    But, if I did refuse to pay income taxes, it would only be a "conscientious objection," really a token protest, because it does not actually cause NONE of my money to go to the government to be used against my will.

    This is really a useless argument and a useless debate, as usual.

    And, by the way, I'm not objecting to things the government does because of my "religious beliefs." I believe "religion" is a deadly thing, and the government is also a deadly thing. I base my beliefs and objections on Truth, and yes, Truth comes from God, but it's not religious.





  • brianrutledge
    I noticed it was said that Dr. David Prentice was a world renown expert on stem cells. I was wondering what his Ph.D is in, since I can't find it on the internet.World renown experts on stem cell research have advanced degrees in biology and molecular genetics etc. and spend years in the the research lab. I believe he works for the Family Research Council,founded by Dr. Dobson but no longer associated with him,, which has expertise in lobbying for Christian right issues, but does no scientific reserach at all.

    Wouldn't it be more honest to say Dr. Prentice has expertise in lobbying and is knowledgeable on stem cells, but is not a world renown expert in the field of stem cell research.To claim that you must be well acquainted with all the intricacies and chemical complexities of research. He has also lent his name to a supplement( Stem Enhance) advertisement that is sold on the internet and claims to enhance your own bodies stem cells .If that were true this product would be used in ALL major research centers and not sold as a supplement over the internet.Very few world renoun science experts lend their name to unproven supplements advertised on the internet. Reading in depth on stem cells is a lot different than getting a degree and then devoting your life to hours in the lab.If he has a proper degree and has done the intense research as well, I would welcome that information. It would be nice to know what degree he has, as well
  • I think it's fairly plain to anyone who reads his full bio--and who isn't hostile to the information he conveys--that he is more than adequately qualified to address this topic.
  • brianrutledge
    I couldn't find his bio to save my life and finally just did. When I saw that he had allowed his name to be associated with a supplement,I became skeptical. I was dead wrong and apologize to you and he both. This is twice this month I have assumed things I shouldn't on this blog. And I wouldn't say I am hostile to his message, because I still have great qualms about ESCR because I just dont know when life begins.My only argument is that we dont know FOR ABSOLUTE SURE that ESCR has little to no benefit.Haven't done the research to prove that. That is all I am maintaining. Ethics question whether or not it should even be pursued, but to flatly state that ESCR is essentially valueless is all I question.Again, I apologize to Dr Pentice
  • DCM
    "My only argument is that we dont know FOR ABSOLUTE SURE that ESCR has little to no benefit. Haven't done the research to prove that."

    HOW long has ESCR been going on without producing any useful results, or even showing that it potentially could? How much longer will it take before we can be any more sure than we are?
  • brianrutledge
    DCM That is a good question. Take out the ethical concerns and just ask if enough research has now been done in ESCR to honestly say it has no useful results.If you look at the world wide research, there are many research programs that are showing very positive results in ESCR. Retinal regeneration is a recent one. The only way to know is to let it play out in science itself. Science is self limiting. Research dollars are scant and if researchers draw blanks long enough on any research, it will dry up and be cut off.Then is when and how we will know
  • DCM
    Did a quick search and only found mention of retinal regeneration being done with what sounded like *adult* stem cells.

    ESCR has been going on for, what, something like 30 years? The most important question, I think, is: does ESCR actually show potential for *anything* that can't be done with adult stem cells?
  • brianrutledge
    DCM In the OCT. 2009 issue of the journal 'Cell Stem Cell' , they discuss the study showing the regenerative effects of human ESC's on the the retina. This journal is a great source for all the latest potential studies showing where ESC research is going. Because of the ethical concerns, many countries, like our own, have not had unfettered access to ESC research.Many prior obstacles that plagued ESC research early on are being overcome as technology and understanding slowly improves.

    That is why the '30 year' theory that since these cells haven't had a lot of success is invalid. It isn't so much the 'time' that is important in research, but whether or not promise is being shown.Who knows where ESC research would be in the US if there weren't ethical issues. It took decades for vaccines to be researched and slowly advanced and we are still improving them. Failure of science is not defined by timespans.

    Maybe Adult Stem Cells will prevail over ESC, which would eliminate the ethical issue, but I don't think anyone can claim to know that at the present time
  • DCM
    Interesting, but I notice that my last (and most important) question remains completely unanswered by your response. And even if "prior obstacles that plagued ESCR" began to be overcome, wouldn't that mean ESCR was just barely beginning to be able to do what adult stem cells have already been doing?
  • brianrutledge
    DCM Sorry. I thought that was obvious and it is one of the questions that hasn't been answered by science. I think the question is which( ESCR or ASCR ) will emerge in the 'long run' as the superior modality and not who is ahead now.. The race hasn't been completed yet. Sort of like running a marathon, the leader at mile 20 doesn't always win the race even if he has a pretty good lead. Scientific research is full of these type of examples where the front runner fades in the end.

    The question of whether adult stem cells can be COMPLETELY turned back into that most primitive of cells-the embryonic stem cell- looms large. Many scientists feel that total reprogramming of the adult cell ALL the way back to its most basic state may not be possible, thus depriving mankind in the long run The only way to know if a reprogrammed adult cell is as beneficial as an original emryonic stem cell is to let the research persist and keep comparing the two. It could take a hundred years to answer. It is even possible that one will have strength in one area and the other in another. Who knows at the moment.

    An analogy would be like 'the war of the currents' between AC or DC electricity. Thomas Edison's DC electricity jumped initially to the lead as the best way to provide electricity to the world. Starting behind and further back was the AC electricity of Nikola Tesla.Even though it intially appeared that DC was superior and would light the world, with time and then being able to COMPARE THE TWO when each had been thoroughly reseached, it was then and only then that it became obvious that AC was superior. The complete race had been run.

    I would love for science to battle this out in lab, but as it has been in past areas of medical research, ethical issues have come up which also must be considered.
  • Thanks, Brian.

    I thought I had included enough information from his bio at the end of my piece to make a convincing case for his knowledge of the subject, but as you've probably seen by now, for brevity's sake I only included about a third or so of the information available about him.

    I apologize to you. I just couldn't see how anyone could look at his qualifications and come away with a verdict of "unqualified" without being hostile to what he said.
  • DCM
    "...many people don’t understand the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells..." Why don't they understand it? This has to change. It is past time for this debate to end. There is NO justification or reason for ESCR. ASCR is where it's at. There is no room for argument on this.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »