Archive for the ‘Stell Cell Research’ Category

A Rare Side Effects of Stem Cell Therapy: A Case Study

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Oct 11 2018

By: Ian Murnaghan BSc (hons), MSc - Updated: 28 Sep 2018 | *Discuss

There is no doubt that stem cell therapy holds enormous potential. Unfortunately, this potential also brings with it side-effects, some particularly severe. Such was the case during a therapy that used human foetal stem cells.

The boy in the case suffered from a rare genetic disease known as Ataxia Telangiectasia. This disorder affects many areas of the body and can cause significant disability. The body does not coordinate properly and those who suffer from the disease have a weak immune system as well as problems with their respiratory system.

While there have been some cases reported where experimentation on rodents resulted in the growth of tumours after stem cell injection, this hadn't been documented in humans after foetal stem cell therapy. Researchers also knew that this risk in rodents could be reduced if the stem cells were differentiated before they were injected. This means that the stem cells were coaxed into the desired body cell for the therapy prior to injection.

In a person who has a healthy immune system, the normal 'checks' on the body would be more likely to prevent a tumour from establishing itself. We have known for some time now that there is the potential for stem cells to trigger the growths of tumours but the reality has been that this is a rarity.

Rather than put a stop to stem cell research, it has been suggested that we need to spend more time looking at the Safety of Stem Cells. We should try to find out more about what can potentially go wrong and then develop safeguards to reduce any risks associated with stem cell therapies. This way, we can get the most benefits from stem cells while minimising any chances of side-effects along the way.

You might also like...

Share Your Story, Join the Discussion or Seek Advice..

Kirsten - 28-Sep-18 @ 9:26 PM

Chiso - 20-Sep-18 @ 6:23 AM

aileen - 13-Sep-18 @ 8:26 AM

Daniel Nociaro - 28-Aug-18 @ 4:07 AM

Rey - 25-Aug-18 @ 8:15 AM

Mary - 8-Jul-18 @ 11:30 PM

Mary - 8-Jul-18 @ 2:41 PM

Mary - 8-Jul-18 @ 6:23 AM

kay - 7-Jul-18 @ 7:20 AM

Jare - 30-Jun-18 @ 4:03 PM

Julz - 26-Jun-18 @ 4:22 PM

andy - 26-Jun-18 @ 5:08 AM

Lucky - 23-Jun-18 @ 6:40 AM

Julie - 26-May-18 @ 10:10 PM

mickey - 16-May-18 @ 2:37 PM

Lucky - 10-May-18 @ 7:04 AM

mac - 25-Apr-18 @ 10:33 PM

mac - 25-Apr-18 @ 10:29 PM

Diwaprinters - 5-Apr-18 @ 9:34 AM

Engr - 23-Feb-18 @ 7:28 AM

Amjad - 31-Jan-18 @ 9:08 AM

aunt - 3-Nov-17 @ 11:35 AM

Babu - 24-Oct-17 @ 4:21 PM

Jules - 9-Sep-17 @ 8:29 AM

Hut - 24-Aug-17 @ 11:08 AM

anwar - 21-Jul-17 @ 10:04 AM

Som - 14-Jul-17 @ 4:06 PM

Dhiraj - 10-Jul-17 @ 11:18 AM

Harish - 25-Jun-17 @ 8:03 AM

jacky - 18-May-17 @ 10:06 PM

Title:

(never shown)

Continued here:
A Rare Side Effects of Stem Cell Therapy: A Case Study

Interstellar Trade – Atomic Rockets

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Oct 11 2018

(ed note: This is talking about sea-going trade in the 1600s, but it can be applied to a science fictional universe. Isaac Kuo says "When the rocket equation applied to the crew")

Gemelli Careri, an Italian adventurer, circled the world in the late 17th century. No part of his journey was more dangerous than the trip from Manila to Acapulco, made in 1697 on one of the deep-drafted, many-sailed boats known as the Manila Galleons. These trading ships spent more than two centuries delivering spices and luxury goods from Asia to the New World and Europe, earning enormous profits for their financiers, mostly Spanish colonists in Manila. But here is Careris description from Giro del Mondo (1699) of what life was like for their sailors:

There is Hunger, Thirst, Sickness, Cold, continual Watching, and other Sufferings [The sailors] endure all the plagues God sent upon Pharaoh to soften his hard heart; the Ship swarms with little Vermine, the Spaniards call Gorgojos, bred in the Bisket if Moses miraculously converted his Rod into a Serpent, aboard the Galeon a piece of Flesh, without any Miracle is converted into Wood, and in the shape of a Serpent.

The journey was interminable, the sea was unruly, the food infested. Abundance of poor Sailors fell Sick, Careri writes. As a paying passenger, he would have had slightly better conditions than most of the crew. But status didnt provide much safety: by the end of his journey, two officers, one pilots mate and the Captain Commander were buried at sea, their bodies dragged down by earthen jars tied around their ankles.

The captain died of a disease known as Berben, which according to Careri swells the Body, and makes the Patient dye talking. The second disease, and the most dangerous to the galleons sailors, is called the Dutch Disease, which makes the Mouth sore, putrefies the Gums, and makes the Teeth drop out. This one is more familiar we know it as scurvy. For most of its two and a half centuries in operation, the galleons sailors died in droves of these and other heinous maladies, teeth rattling from their heads, boils blooming on their limbs like black flowers.

The Berkeley historian Jan DeVries found that some 2 million Europeans made trading voyages to Asia between 1580 and 1795. Of these, only 920,412 survived: an overall mortality rate of 54 per cent. European companies, DeVries concludes, sacrificed one human life for every 4.7 tons of Asian cargo returned to Europe. Of course, the Europeans spread their diseases when they travelled, and made liberal use of violence, so the suffering of the people they discovered was even more awful than their own. But no less than colonialism itself, the unrelenting horrors of these sailors lives helped forge the world we live in.

The first Manila Galleon made the round trip between Acapulco and Manila in 1565, and then did it nearly every year until 1815. It was the last link connecting the Earths human populations. As soon as the Spanish arrive in Manila, says Arturo Girldez, professor of Spanish literature at the University of the Pacific in California, we have a permanent connection between all the landmasses.

Though much of the history of European exploration is told through fantastic tales of overland quests for cities of gold, the galleons, their owners and their crews had no more mythical or lofty goals than Maersk or other giant merchant shipping concerns do today. It was the seaborne quest for trade that bound the far reaches of the globe together, and it is trade that has kept the world connected.

Foremost among the objects of trade were spices. After being introduced to benighted Europe from the Middle East during the Crusades, Asian spices became spectacularly prized for both their taste and their purported medical benefits. For decades, the most desired spices, including nutmeg and clove, were grown only on tiny Pacific islands called the Moluccas. They came to Europe through complex overland chains of Asian and Arab middlemen, who each took exorbitant premiums.

Europeans soon realised that they had the means to cut out those middlemen: spectacularly advanced maritime technology. Trade in the Mediterranean had relied since antiquity on slow-moving galleys, driven by oars, hard to steer, and with shallow drafts that made them unfit for the open ocean. But advances starting in the seventh century had deepened keels, multiplied sails, and made rudders sturdier. This new breed of ship, which would become the backbone of the galleon trade, was fast and manoeuvrable, able to withstand stormy seas while carrying huge amounts of cargo and large cast guns.

Leveraging this new technology, the Portuguese reached the spice islands of Southeast Asia by sailing around Africa in the 15th century. The 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas prevented the worlds other then-great power, Spain, from taking the same route so they started searching for a westward path, by way of the New World.

The first to confront the task was Ferdinand Magellan, one of the explorers least due the reverence granted by grade-school history lessons. Magellans Spanish fleet (he himself was Portuguese, real name Ferno de Magalhes) left Seville in 1519, rounding the tip of South America and crossing to Asia in 99 days. Even that brief journey was more than Magellan had prepared for: by the time the fleet reached Guam, his sailors were gnawing on the leather fittings of their sails out of hunger.

Worse, Magellan didnt know how to sail back to Mexico. Todays carbon-fuelled ships can largely ignore the forces swirling around them, and simply follow the straightest possible line to their destination. But in the age of sail, wind and currents were a ships fuel. Corralled by the great forces of lunar gravitation, climate, and the Earths rotation, the oceans travel great looping paths that remain steady for centuries. These were the highways of European exploration and trade. While Magellan had known where to find the westward current to Asia, he didnt know the way back.

On 27 April 1521, Magellan got himself killed in a local conflict in the Philippines, and his fleet fell apart. His ship, the Trinidad, attempted to sail back across the Pacific the way it had come. It spent months being pushed back to Asia the naval equivalent of trying to climb up the down escalator before the crew finally surrendered in despair to local Portuguese forces. The second ship, the Victoria, took an existing westward route home, rounding Africa and returning to Spain in September 1522, completing the first full circumnavigation of the Earth.

It was a historic milestone, but no model for a profitable trade route. For that, the Spanish needed to find the return route from Manila to Mexico, the eastward leg of the Pacific Gyre. They spent decades searching for it, before finally succeeding thanks to the sailor-monk Andrs de Urdaneta. A different breed altogether from Magellan, and far more deserving of memorialisation, Urdaneta was thoughtful and devout. He had stayed for 9 years on the Moluccas after an ill-fated 1525 Spanish expedition, so he knew the region well. He was 66 and a man of the cloth in Mexico City when, in 1564, the Spanish crown drafted him to help finish Magellans work.

Urdaneta served as pilot of a small fleet under the command of Miguel Lpez de Legazpi. The fleet, first following Magellans route westward from Mexico, captured the Philippines for Spain, and established Manila as a Spanish commercial base. In 1565, acting on local knowledge gleaned during his lengthy stranding on the Moluccas, he guided one ship, the San Pablo, north from Manila along the coast of Japan. There, he found the northward Kuroshio Current the first leg of a great watery highway that soon turned eastward, towards Mexico. This, at last, was the long-dreamed of tornaviaje, or return. Finding it was Urdanetas greatest accomplishment.

The narrow thread of force that connected Manila to Acapulco was, as it turns out, much less friendly to humans than its westward counterpart. The 11,500 miles Urdaneta crossed while returning to Mexico was then the longest sea journey ever made without landing. He took on no fresh water or food for more than four months. Much of the journey, as Careri would attest more than a century later, was both stormy and frigid. By the time they reached land again, Urdanetas crew was exhausted and malnourished. What they werent, mostly, was dead. In light of what followed, this is astounding.

One or two ships sailed Urdanetas route each year for the next two and a half centuries. The Manila Galleons were immensely profitable, with the lions share of the proceeds flowing to the Spanish colonists in Manila who financed and organised the trade. The ships arrived from Mexico laden with silver, which the Chinese badly needed for their rapidly expanding monetary system. They returned carrying not just Indonesian spice Spains original object but Chinese silk and porcelain, and Japanese jewels and preserves.

In Manila, life was leisurely, even beautiful. The work of administering the galleons took up only two or three months of a year, with the rest of the colonists time given purely to lavish parties, carriage rides, and social intrigue. The Spanish were singularly indolent occupiers, developing no aspect of the local economy except the galleon trade. They couldnt even be bothered to dig up the Philippines gold, currently calculated as the third largest reserve in the world. They were interested in profit, not in shaping the lives of the people they colonised.

Though just as one-dimensional as the conquer-and-plunder approach taken elsewhere by the Spanish, the Philippine occupation was different in one crucial way: the resource they were exploiting was not Manilas metal, spice or opium, but its location between the spice islands, China and the New World. Europe was still in the grip of a mercantilist economic ideology that valued exports over multilateral trade. But the galleons amazing profitability showed, long before Adam Smith wrote it down, that national specialisation was the source of wealth, and those who conquered the distance between regions could reap that wealth.

The galleons ushered in global capitalism in another, bleaker way. Friedrich Engels, observing the disease, malnourishment and suffering rampant in Londons nightmarish 19th-century slums, would write that everything which here arouses horror and indignation is of recent origin, belongs to the industrial epoch. Engels was wrong. The age of sail gave us the same kind of horror, or worse.

The crossing that Urdaneta first completed in four months took longer for the less savvy sailors who followed in his wake: five months, sometimes as many as eight, with no fresh water but from rain, and no fresh food but from the sea. Never before had humans been so isolated from their natural environment, for so long, in such numbers. Centuries before the slums of industrial Europe, the trade ships of the Pacific were full of sailors rolling in their own shit, starving to death, and ravaged by disease a Breugellian vista of Hell, compacted into a boat. At times, the dangers grew too great. In 1657, the San Jose was found drifting off the coast of Acapulco, every last crewman and passenger dead.

The typical provisions of a trading ship consisted of salted, preserved meat, a variety of beans, wine, oil and vinegar and, usually in scant portions, luxuries such as honey, chocolate, rice, almonds, and raisins. But the most famous staple was hardtack, or ships biscuit. This was a sort of primitive granola bar made by baking a dense dough until it was hard as a rock. The process was supposed to preserve it, but the sea was merciless. In every Mouthful, said Careri, There went down abundance of Maggots, and Gorgojas chewd and bruisd.

Gorgojo now means weevil, but there are multiple contemporary accounts of them feeding on crewmembers, so that meaning might have shifted. Regardless, various tiny creatures constantly besieged sailors veins and food supplies. Careri also describes soups swimming with worms of several sorts, and beans infested with maggots. The sailors had little option but to dig in.

Fishing provided psychological relief from this nightmare, but didnt solve the underlying, disastrous problem: the total lack of fruit and vegetables. A certain amount was loaded on departure from Manila, but this was reserved almost exclusively for officers, and consumed within weeks. Those aboard could not have understood the chemistry or biology that made this so deadly. They saw only the consequences.

At around the third month without landfall, the sailors gums would begin to swell, while their energy flagged. As their condition progressed, the gum tissue became so swollen that sailors sometimes cut large chunks from their own mouths and felt nothing. As lethargy overwhelmed them, the rest of their flesh began to decompose before their eyes, skin taking on the soft touch of fungus, and black ulcers swelling from it. This was followed by multiple organ failure and, ultimately, death.

Many between the 16th and 19th century reckoned scurvy a consequence of the malodorous vapours of the Pacific. Careri and many others knew that the best remedy against it, is going ashore but exactly why wasnt known. A scattered few had observed that fresh fruit cured the disease, but many seamen thought burying a victim up to the neck in dirt was also a powerful cure.

Even as their crews rotted alive, the galleons often carried Chinese ginger as part of their payload of prized spices. Though ginger was generally known for its medicinal as well as culinary properties, it was not understood that it is a source for ascorbic acid, or vitamin C, which is crucial to the bodys synthesis of collagen, the basic building block of our connective tissues and skin. In its absence, humans literally fall apart.

Those not killed by scurvy were at risk from another inescapable element of life on the galleons: severe crowding. Priests, who had free passage as missionaries, were sometimes crammed into cabins so small they had to rest their heads on one anothers feet. In 1767, aboard the San Carlos, 62 Jesuits were confined to a space meant for 20. They were then joined by 25 soldiers and a small herd of pigs. And these were the privileged: most sailors were expected to simply cram themselves into any available corner.

While all sea vessels are necessarily confined, the galleons had a particular problem. Space on these ships, especially on the return trip to Acapulco, was astronomically valuable. Their crowding embodied what the historian Jack Turner calls the law of increasing exoticism: The further they travelled from their origins, the more interesting [spices and trade goods] became, the greater the passions they aroused, the higher their value. The returns on even small cargos from the East could be huge.

This led to some amazingly inhumane decisions by those in charge. Careri describes huge shipboard cisterns, designed to both store and collect water on the journey, being smashed to make room for goods belonging to an officers friends. This was practically an act of murder: sailors ration of water was already a mere two pints a day. Frequently, ships sailed without backup sails and repair supplies, and it was common practice to store the guns to save space, making them useless for repelling pirates, which often lurked in wait of the galleons precious cargo.

The most common product of severe crowding was infectious disease. Microbiotic fiends traversed the constantly moist membranes of passengers and sailors, breeding typhus (known as ship fever) and typhoid (a disease spread by fleas and ticks). These were later joined by new diseases of exploration such as yellow fever and syphilis, the latter discovered in the New World before spreading to Europe and, primarily by the galleons themselves, to Asia.

Disease was exacerbated by a primitive view of cleanliness among Europeans of the age. Though latrines that cantilevered over the ocean were available on some galleons, many sailors didnt use them, instead shitting into the ships bilge, or even in the general hold. In part, Careri tells us, that was because of the incessant, brutal cold. But this indifference was widespread. The French sailor Franois Pyrard de Laval wrote in 1610 that typical Portuguese ships around India were mighty foul and stink withal; the most men not troubling themselves to go on deck for their necessities.

The lack of basic hygiene on ships illustrates the vast gap between early modern knowledge of geography and sailing on the one hand, and of the internal frontiers of the human body on the other. It was well-known that the world was round, part of the basis for the galleons amazing navigational leap. But few educated Europeans of the 16th and 17th century had more than the vaguest concepts of nutrition, infection, germs or the role of cleanliness in health. Most ships, even as late as the 18th century, relied for rudimentary medical help on a multitasking barber whose most effective tools were his enema syringe and tooth-puller.

This had deep intellectual roots. For the 15th and most of the 16th century, medical authorities were engaged in a kind of backwards march, blindly deferential to the second-century Greek physician Galen. Galenistic medicine was based on the theory of the humours, a set of materials with various qualities that had to be balanced within the body.

Advancement past this theory was hampered by a Papal ban on human dissection for research, not lifted until 1482. But a rationalistic approach to illness was, even then, centuries away. The Manila Galleons launched more than 30 years before the birth in 1596 of Ren Descartes, whose thinking would prove foundational for the very concept of an experiment. They launched precisely a century before Robert Boyle, in 1665, became the first to make biological use of the word cell. The connection between cleanliness and contagion wasnt persuasively argued until John Pringles Observations on the Diseases of the Army (1752). The first controlled experiments showing the effectiveness of citrus fruits in preventing scurvy were performed by James Lind in 1747. In fact, they were the first properly controlled medical experiments ever conducted.

But there was more than simple ignorance behind the suffering of the galleons sailors. The ships were often suspiciously overcrewed. They could be sailed by 40 or fewer, but carried crew complements of between 75 and, as the ships grew larger, 200. In Vanguard of Empire (1993), Roger C Smith points out that this overcrewing was due to the (correct) assumption that many of the crew would die.

Providing better food was known to decrease mortality emergency rations of higher quality were packed on all ships to aid the recovery of the ill (though Careri observed that most of that quickly ended up at the captains table). But providing higher quality food would have been a major expense for financiers, without greatly increasing the likelihood that a ships cargo would arrive intact which is all that really mattered to them. In fact, since the bulk of salaries was paid only at the end of a round trip, allowing half of all crew to die would have been a double cost saving. And so the sailors wore the yoke of global commerce, were worked to death, and then forgotten.

The Manila Galleon was ultimately undone by its own success. The route was eventually worked by ships of almost every European power, albeit illegally. Merchant competition for Asian goods drove up prices, while cheaper manufactured textiles undercut demand. In 1770, the Frenchman Pierre Poivre began successfully cultivating nutmeg and clove in the Indian Ocean, ending the spice monopoly of the Moluccas. The final decades of the Manila line were marked by frequent losses (both maritime and economic) and half-filled ships. The last galleon ran in 1815.

By then, it was just one part of an expansive network of global shipping. Commercial steam power, which emerged in 1807 on the Hudson River, would eventually make that trade faster, more efficient and much less deadly. The months-long Pacific crossing that killed a million men can now be made, even by the most leisurely of diesel container ships, in two weeks.

Reliable global trade underpins the unprecedented affluence now shared by many humans. In a better world, it might have spread its benefits even more widely. But todays robust network, and the technology that underpins it, would likely never have appeared without a template to guide their growth. That template was crude, exploitative, unreliable and very often, for the men whose bodies fuelled it, gruesomely lethal.

Read more from the original source:
Interstellar Trade - Atomic Rockets

Stem Cell Research | NWABR.ORG

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Sep 29 2018

This unit, which was designed by teachers in conjunction with scientists, ethicists, and curriculum developers, explores the scientific and ethical issues involved in stem cell research. The unit begins with an exploration of planaria as a model organism for stem cell research. Next, students identify stages in the development of human embryos and compare the types and potency of stem cells. Students learn about a variety of techniques used for obtaining stem cells and the scientific and ethical implications of those techniques. While exploring the ethics of stem cell research, students will develop an awareness of the many shades of gray that exist among positions of stakeholders in the debate. Students will be provided an opportunity to become familiar with policies and regulations for stem cell research that are currently in place in the United States, the issues regarding private and public funding, and the implications for treatment of disease and advancement of scientific knowledge.

The unit culminates with students developing a position on embryonic stem cell research through the use of a Decision-Making Framework. Two culminating assessments are offered: In the individual assessment, students write a letter to the President or the Presidents Bioethics Committee describing their position and recommendations; In the group assessment, students develop a proposal for NIH funding to research treatment for a chosen disease using either embryonic or 'adult' stem cells.

The complete Stem Cell Curriculum is now available free for download from the Lessons page.

In order for us to measure how our curriculum resources are being used, please take a moment tocontact us.

We also welcome feedback about our Stem Cell Curriculum. We will not share your contact information with anyone.

Links

This unit, which was designed by teachers in conjunction with scientists, ethicists, and curriculum developers, explores the scientific and ethical issues involved in stem cell research. The unit begins with an exploration of planaria as a model organism for stem cell research. Next, students identify stages in the development of human embryos and compare the types and potency of stem cells. Students learn about a variety of techniques used for obtaining stem cells and the scientific and ethical implications of those techniques. While exploring the ethics of stem cell research, students will develop an awareness of the many shades of gray that exist among positions of stakeholders in the debate. Students will be provided an opportunity to become familiar with policies and regulations for stem cell research that are currently in place in the United States, the issues regarding private and public funding, and the implications for treatment of disease and advancement of scientific knowledge.

The unit culminates with students developing a position on embryonic stem cell research through the use of a Decision-Making Framework. Two culminating assessments are offered: In the individual assessment, students write a letter to the President or the Presidents Bioethics Committee describing their position and recommendations; In the group assessment, students develop a proposal for NIH funding to research treatment for a chosen disease using either embryonic or 'adult' stem cells.

The complete Stem Cell Curriculum is now available free for download. In order for us to measure how our curriculum resources are being used, we request that you please complete the brief information form before being directed to the download page. We will not share your contact information with anyone, although we may contact you in the future in order to determine how our materials are being used.

See the original post here:
Stem Cell Research | NWABR.ORG

Stem Cell Research | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Sep 29 2018

Stem cell research has been touted as a highly promising avenue for the treatment of disease and injury. Embryonic stem cells (ESC) have the ability to differentiate into the more than 200 different cell types in the human body. While these controversial cells have been promoted as more promising for the treatment of disease, this research involves the destruction of embryos, and thus makes it unethical from CBHD's perspective. Furthermore, despite all of the early claims of potential ESC researchhas faced significanttechnical hurdles. Adult stem cells are found in several human tissues (e.g., bone marrow and umbilical cord blood), and in contrast to embryonic stem cells do not raise the same kind of moral concerns and have provided a number of successful treatments and therapies. Recent advances in this field also include the discovery and development of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS or iPSCs) and direct cell reprogramming, both of which hold significant promise for the understanding and treatment of disease and avoid the ethical concerns of embryonic stem cell research raised by the destruction of human embryos. Other ethical considerations regarding stem cell research include the potential use of human pluripotent stem cells in animals as well as the potential creation of human gametes or embryos from stem cells. Stem cell research falls under the broader category of biotechnology.

Link:
Stem Cell Research | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity

Stem Cell Research Program Grants portal.ct.gov | Stem …

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Sep 29 2018

Connecticut Stem Cell Research Grants-in-Aid Program

The Connecticut Stem Cell Research Grants-in-Aid Program was established by the Connecticut General Assembly in June 2005 when it passed Connecticut General Statutes 19a-32d through 19a-32g. This legislation appropriates $20 million dollars to support embryonic and human adult stem cell research through June 30, 2007. In addition, for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 2008 through June 30, 2015, the legislation specifies that an additional $10 million dollars should be disbursed to support additional research. In total, at least $100 million in public support will be available over the next ten years for stem cell research.

Lay Summary Example

Below is an example of a lay summary excerpt from a technical report required of all grantees that meets the expectations of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee:

5. Detailed lay language summary:

There is great promise in embryonic stem cell-based therapies to treat a variety of neurological disorders. It is key that we understand how the transplanted cells may interact with the host brain to guarantee the safety of this approach. We observe that robust transplants of embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitors in the hippocampus are richly vascularized, associated with multiple blood vessels. In addition, the transplanted cells can migrate on these blood vessels some distance away from the initial transplant site. We are now studying how interactions with the blood vessels may nurture the transplant and support its successful integration into the host. We are also examining the factors that might promote or inhibit the migration of transplanted cells on the surface of existing blood vessels. This interaction could be used to target grafted cells to a specific site. Alternatively this could be a dangerous process we would like to block, as it could lead to cells present in undesirable places.

Significance of recent findings: When embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitors are transplanted to the central nervous system, the general expectation is that they will remain where transplanted, or perhaps migrate short distances. Our observation that these cells can migrate on blood vessels long distances sets up a red flag: cells may well end up a great distance from where they were intended to be. By understanding the molecular basis for this migration, we hope to be able to control it, specifically inhibit it when the desire is to keep a transplant in place. Alternatively, it may be desirable to use this blood vessel highway to target cells to specific distant sites.

Frequently Asked Questions

How did Connecticuts Stem Cell Research Program come about?

The Connecticut Stem Cell Research Grant Project is the direct result of legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2005 (Connecticut General Statutes 19a-32d through 19a-32g.). This legislation provides public funding in support of stem cell research on embryonic and human adult stem cells. This legislation also bans the cloning of human beings in Connecticut.

Back to Questions

What kinds of research will be eligible for funding?

The Stem Cell Research Fund supports embryonic and human adult stem cell research, including basic research to determine the properties of stem cells.

Back to Questions

Where is the money coming from for this research?

Stem cell research fundscome from the Stem Cell Research Fund. This Fund will receive a total of $100 million dollars of state money over ten years. The General Assembly had set aside $20 million of state money for the purpose of stem cell research through June 2007. An additional $10 million dollars a year over the subsequent eight years will come from the Connecticut Tobacco Settlement Fund. The Stem Cell Research Fund may also contain any funds received from any public or private contributions, gifts, grants, donations or bequests.

Back to Questions

Who oversees the Stem Cell Research Fund?

The Commissioner of the State Department of Public Health (DPH) may make grants-in-aid from the fund. The Connecticut Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee), a legislatively appointed committee established by Connecticut General Statutes 19a-32d through 19a-32g, directs the Commissioner with respect to the awarding of grants-in-aid, and develops the stem cell research application process. The Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee is also required to keep the Governor and the General Assembly apprised of the current status of stem cell research in Connecticut through annual reports commencing June 2007.

The legislation further established a Connecticut Stem Cell Research Peer Review Committee (Peer Review Committee) to review all applications with respect to the scientific and ethical meritsand to make recommendations to the Advisory Committee and the Commissioner of DPH.

Back to Questions

How are the members of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee determined?

The Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee is made up of 17 members. By statute, the Advisory Committee is chaired by the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH). Other members of the committee are appointed by the Governor and by various leaders of the General Assembly from the fields of stem cell research, stem cell investigation, bioethics, embryology, genetics, cellular biology and business. Committee members commit to a two-year or four-year term of service.

Back to Questions

Who evaluates the merits of the grant applications and decides how the grants are distributed?

The Stem Cell Research Peer Review Committee reviews all grant applications for scientific and ethical merit, guided by the National Academies Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The Stem Cell Research Peer Review Committee makes its recommendations on grants to the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee for consideration. The members of the Stem Cell Peer Review Committee must have demonstrated and practical knowledge, understanding and experience of the ethical and scientificimplications of embryonic and adult stem cell research. The DPH Commissioner appoints all committee members for either two or four-year terms. The Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee directs the Commissioner of the Department of Public Health with respect to the awarding of grants-in-aid.

Back to Questions

Who may apply for the stem cell research grants?

Any non-profit, tax-exempt academic institution of higher education, any hospital that conducts biomedical research or any entity that conducts biomedical research or embryonic or human adult stem cell research may apply for grants from the Connecticut Stem Cell Research Fund.

Back to Questions

What efforts are being made to assure the people of the state of Connecticut that all committee dealings and any research are ethically conducted?

The State of Connecticut is committed to implementing the Stem Cell Research Program according to the highest ethical and scientific standards, and committed to conducting all business activities in a transparent and consumer friendly manner. Meetings of the committee where decisions are being made will comply with Freedom of Information Act requirements for public meetings and public records. Proceedings of all scheduled meetings of the Advisory Board will be transcribed and made available to the public, and when possible, meetings will be televised via local public access television.

Members of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee are considered to be public officials and are subject to state ethics laws, which require full accountability and transparency. Both the Peer Review and Advisory Committees are responsible for overseeing the standards of research funded from this grant program. Reports on scientific progress are required of grant recipients. Annual financial disclosures are required for all members of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee.

Back to Questions

Who else is involved with overseeing this project?

The State of Connecticut Department of Public Health, working in conjunction with the legislatively mandated Advisory and Peer Review Committees, is responsible for the overall implementation of the stem cell legislation.Withinthe DPH, the Office of Research and Development is the organizational unit tasked with managing the stem cell research project components.

In addition, the stem cell legislation names Connecticut Innovations as the administrative staff of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee, assisting the Advisory Committee in developing and implementing the application process, including application reviews and execution of agreements.

Back to Questions

What is the timeline for the application process?

The Advisory Committee developed and issued the first Request for Proposals on May 10, 2006. As of the July 10, 2006 deadline, 70 applications for public funding were received. Applications were made available for peer review on August 4, 2006.On November 21, 2006, the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee awarded almost $19.8 million for 21 stem cell research proposals.

The second Request for Proposals was issued on July 25, 2007. As of the November 1, 2007 deadline, 94 applications for public funding were received. The Peer Review Committee completed their review and reported by teleconference on March 5, 2008. On April 1, 2008, the SCRAC awarded $9.84 million for 22 stem cell research projects.

The third Request for Proposals was issued on September 24, 2008. As of the December 8, 2008 deadline, 77 applications for public funding were received. The Peer Review Committee completed their review and reported by teleconference on March 17, 2009. On March 31, 2009, the SCRAC awarded $9.8 million for 24 stem cell research projects.

Back to Questions

Which grant applications received funding in 2006?

An Integrated Approach to Neural Differentiation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, Yale University, Michael P. Snyder, Principal Investigator, $3,815,476.72

Directing hES Derived Progenitor Cells into Musculoskeletal Lineages, University of Connecticut Health Center and University of Connecticut, David W. Rowe, M. D., Principal Investigator, $3,520,000

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Core Facility at Yale Stem Cell Center, Yale University, Haifan Lin, Principal Investigator, $2,500,000

Human ES Cell Core At University of Connecticut and Wesleyan University, University of Connecticut Health Center, Ren-He Xu, Principal Investigator, $2,500,000

DsRNA and Epigenetic Regulation in Embryonic Stem Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Gordon G. Carmichael, $880,000.

Alternative Splicing in Human Embryonic Stem Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Brenton R. Graveley, Principal Investigator, $880,000

SMAD4-based ChIP-chip Analysis to Screen Target Genes of BMP and TGF Signaling in Human ES Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Ren-He Xu, Principal Investigator, $880,000

Directing Production and Functional Integration of Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Neural Stem Cells, Wesleyan University, Laura B. Grabel, Principal Investigator, $878,348.24

Role of the Leukemia Gene MKL in Developmental Hematopoiesis Using hES Cells, Yale University, Diane Krause, Principal Investigator, $856,653.72

Migration and Integration of Embryonic Stem Cell Derived Neurons into Cerebral Cortex, University of Connecticut, Joseph LoTurco, Principal Investigator, $561,631.84

Optimizing Axonal Regeneration Using a Polymer Implant Containing hESC-derived Glia, University of Connecticut, Akiko Nishiyama, $529,871.76

Development of Efficient Methods for Reproducible and Inducible Transgene Expression in Human Embryonic Stem Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, James Li, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Pragmatic Assessment of Epigenetic Drift in Human ES Cell Lines, University of Connecticut, Theodore Rasmussen, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, $200,000

Cell Cycle and Nuclear Reprogramming by Somatic Cell Fusion, University of Connecticut Health Center, Winfried Krueger, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Function of the Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein in Early Human Neural Development, Yale University, Yingqun Joan Huang, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Quantitative Analysis of Molecular Transport and Population Kinetics of Stem Cell Cultivation in a Microfluidic System, University of Connecticut, Tai-His Fan, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Embryonic Stem Cell as a Universal Cancer Vaccine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Bei Liu, Zihai Li, M. D., Principal Investigators, $200,000

Lineage Mapping of Early Human Embryonic Stem Cell Differentiation, University of Connecticut, Craig E. Nelson, $200,000

Directed Isolation of Neuronal Stem Cells from hESC Lines, Yale University School of Medicine, Eleni A. Markakis, Principal Investigator, $184,407

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Directed Endogenous Neural Progenitor Cell Migration, Yale University School of Medicine, Erik Shapiro, Principal Investigator, $199,975

Generation of Insulin Producing Cells from Human Embryonic Stem Cells, University of Connecticut, Gang Xu, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Back to Questions

Which grant applications received funding in 2008?

Maintaining and Enhancing the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Core at the Yale Stem Cell Center, Yale University Stem Cell Center, New Haven, Haifan Lin, PhD, Principal Investigator, $1,800,000.

Translational Studies in Monkeys of hESCs for Treatment of Parkinsons Disease, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, D. Eugene Redmond, Jr., MD, Principal Investigator, $1,120,000.

Production and Validation of Patient-Matched Pluipotent Cells for Improved Cutaneous Repair, University of Connecticut Center of Regenerative Biology, Storrs, Theodore Rasmussen, PhD., Principal Investigator, $634,880.

Directed Differentiation of ESCs into Cochlear Precursors for Transplantation as Treatment of Deafness, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Ben Bahr, PhD, Principal Investigator, $500,000.

Synaptic Replenishment Through Embryonic Stem Cell Derived Neurons in a Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimers Disease, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Nada Zecevic, MD, PhD, Principal Investigator, $499,813.

Tyrosone Phosphorylation Profiles Associated with Self-Renewal and Differentiation of hESC, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Bruce Mayer, PhD., Principal Investigator, $450,000.

Directed Differentiation of ESCs into Cochlear Precursors for Transplantation as Treatment of Deafness, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, D. Kent Morest, MD, Principal Investigator, $450,000.

Targeting Lineage Committed Stem Cells to Damaged Intestinal Mucosa, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Daniel W. Rosenberg, PhD., Principal Investigator, $450,000.

Modeling Motor Neuron Degeneration in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Using hESCs, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Xuejun Li, PhD., Principal Investigator, $450,000.

Human Embryonic and Adult Stem Cell for Vascular Regeneration, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Laura E. Niklason, MD, PhD, $450,000.

Effect of Hypoxia on Neural Stem Cells and the Function in CAN Repair, Yale University, New Haven, Flora M. Vaccarino, Principal Investigator, $449,771.40.

Wnt Signaling and Cardiomyocyte Differentiation from hESCs, Yale University, New Haven, Dianqing Wu, Principal Investigator, $446,818.50.

Flow Cytometry Core for the Study of hESC, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Hector Leonardo Aguila, PhD., Principal Investigator, $250,000.

Cortical neuronal protection in spinal cord injury following transplantation of dissociated neurospheres derived from human embryonic stem cells, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Masanori Sasaki, MD, PhD, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Molecular Control of Pluripotency in Human Embryonic Stem Cell, Yale Stem Cell Center, New Haven, Natalia Ivanova, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Cytokine-induced Production of Transplantable Hematopoietic Stem Cells from Human ES Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Laijun Lai, PhD, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Functional Use of Embryonic Stem Cells for Kidney Repair, Yale University, New Haven, Lloyd G. Cantley, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

VRK-1-mediated Regulation of p53 in the Human ES Cell Cycle, Yale University, New Haven, Valerie Reinke, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Definitive Hematopoitic Differentiation of hESCs under Feeder-Free and Serum-Free Conditions, Yale University, Caihong Qiu, PhD, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Differentiation of hESC Lines to Neural Crest Derived Trabecular Meshwork Like Cells Implications in Glaucoma, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Dharamainder Choudhary, PhD., Principal Investigator, $200,000.

The Role of the piRNA Pathway in Epigenetic Regulation of hESCs, Yale University, New Haven, Qiaoqiao Wang, PhD., Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Early Differentiation Markers in hESCs: Identification and Characterization of Candidates, University of Connecticut Center for Regenerative Biology, Storrs, Mark G. Carter, PhD., Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Regulation hESC-dervied Neural Stem Cells by Notch Signaling, Yale University, New Haven, Joshua Breunig, MD, Principal Investigator, $188,676.

Back to Questions

Which grant applications received funding in 2009?

Continuing and Enhancing the UCONN-Wesleyan Stem Cell Core, University of Connecticut Stem Cell Center, Farmington, Ren-He Xu, MD, PhD, Principal Investigator, $1,900,000.00.

Williams Syndrome Associated TFII-I Factor and Epigenetic Marking-Out in hES and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Dashzeveg Bayarsaihan, PhD., Principal Investigator, $500,000.00.

Cellular transplantation of neural progenitors derived from human embryonic stem cells to remyelinate the nonhuman primate spinal cord, Yale University, New Haven, Jeffrey Kocsis, PhD., Principal Investigator, $500,000.00.

Mechanisms of Stem Cell Homing to the Injured Heart, University of Connecticut Health Center, Linda Shapiro, PhD., Principal Investigator, $500,000.00.

Originally posted here: Stem Cell Research Program Grants portal.ct.gov

Continued here:
Stem Cell Research Program Grants portal.ct.gov | Stem ...

What is Stem Cell Research? (with pictures) – wisegeek.com

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Aug 23 2018

anon950526 Post 156

Is there any impact due to this?

Obviously, some of you dont have kids. The life of a child is worth so much more than any adult. You got to live. What if that embryo happened to be you? Would you then feel that it is OK to conduct this research?

I am a mother of two, soon to be three. I don't care about any of that just long as my kids at least get a chance at living and there is a God. I had a 50 percent chance of having babies because of a huge benign tumor that grew on my left ovary and killed my left fallopian tube.

I prayed for my babies and got them every time. Besides that, everybody has their

I watched this gruesome abortion video and the lady was 12 weeks along. You could see the child trying to fight for its life. Murder is murder. Helping to save other people or not -- that's like you seeing a man trying to rape a woman and you shoot him dead. It's the same if you were trying to save her life but you get persecuted and convicted for taking matters into your own hands. I am sorry for those people who are sick and have sick babies. I know what it is like to lose loved ones over untreatable diseases. Im against embryo research and I'm not thinking about me. It is about a baby. Sure, it isnt completely formed, but it's still a child, or at least will grow into one, I wish harm on nobody. There is no harm meant and Im not trying to make someone mad. Im just trying to throw some new views into the situation.

Stem cell research can only benefit society and advance us as a species. If your argument is religious, the you are not thinking. You are letting your emotions and beliefs speak for you, not your logic or common sense. A bunch of cells is not a baby, and helping the living is not against "God's will". This is a good thing and it will continue regardless of religious views, because it makes sense.

I'm still kind of learning about this topic, but abortion is something I feel strongly against, but if a baby was taken from it's mother with the mother's okay and they were trying to save people's lives, I would be completely okay with that.

I believe that God does not exist, and that stem cell research is truly phenomenal. This research should not be controversial, nor should it be banned; it is helping the living.

Most of the people who say that stem cell research is bad are religious, but people living in the real world and believe in this thing called 'science' actually make a difference. Religion has only held back society and science. I wonder how many religious people would get angry if they knew that I was a homosexual, atheist physicist who believes in evolution and the big bang theory.

I am writing a persuasive essay on whether stem cell research should be legal or not (even though it already is in the U.S.). I was never a really religious person and stuck mainly to things that I knew for sure were happening. The thing is, most of the stem cells they are using for research are going to be discarded anyway. No one is claiming them, no one is caring about them, and they are just going to be thrown away. It is better for them to be used for a greater cause than just being thrown away and losing the chance to create treatments and cures for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases.

Without trying to offend anyone, please don't

bring God into this, like if you're going to simply take the stem cells and create babies with them. The cells could be considered early life, but you lose cells every day and no one gives it a second thought. I am thirteen years old and sorry if you believe that I am wrong.

This is a terrible thing. Stem cell research is just an excuse for making us Americans pay for other peoples' abortions. This stem cell research crap may have fooled my friends who claim abortion is when the baby isn't fully developed and that it's murder to kill a baby after it's born. What's the difference? Abortion is murder.

This country is so corrupt it will probably start killing the elderly and calling it abortion, or calling every day murder of people abortion. Well, I have had enough of this crap Obama is trying to trick us with. God says life is precious and an undeveloped baby is made of many cells and cells are alive. Think about that, America. Not only that, but abortion is unnecessary. If a girl gets raped, she can put the baby up for adoption instead of murdering the baby. Studies show many women who had abortions regret it.

So what you are all arguing about is if god exists and whats his plan for us, and why or why should we not use pre-embryo stem cells. It's completely your own opinion, but when does life start for a baby -- when the sperm reaches the egg or when you hear his heartbeat?

I, for one, say we should not use embryo stem cells because they are a living being. Also for all of you who say its gods plan for us, who created god? He could not just have created himself out of nowhere. These are just my thoughts. But these are all still questions we do not know the answer to.

I've been researching this Stem Cell subject for a long time, and I'm so amazed at everyone's stories from the news and sites on how stem cells has helped them recover from so many types of sicknesses and diseases. Even cancer can be cured by this type of treatment.

One big factor is that it's not a drug but it will just treat your body in a nice and natural way. Stem cell therapy is nice but I found this Laminine on the market. People keep on talking about it, saying it's the new science breakthrough and that I should give a try. It's not a literal stem cell but it is a stem cell enhancer, and safer than the usual way of Stem Cell Therapy.

I gave it a try and in just a few weeks I felt its proven power that I also recommend it to everyone out there.

How is that clump of cells considered a newborn? Those cells aren't a newborn because there's still a chance that once you implant those embryos they don't hold, so it's not a child. They don't take these people's cells then say, nope you can't have your child -- we're going to use them for someone else. They're leftovers. No one is going to use them and they are going to get discarded. If you consider it a human how is it humane to let it sit there frozen forever, discarded and unloved? People throwing god around are ignorant. Not everyone believes in your "creator" and don't throw it in my face. Believe in your beliefs, but don't force mine.

@post 52: If there is no God, who do you think made the universe? Your dad didn't make it, I didn't make, you didn't make, nor did any person. Only an eternal being must have made the universe.

Look. What none of you guys are realizing is that embryonic stem cell research doesn't focus solely on embryos.

I'm a student getting my masters degree in pediatric nursing, so you guys can't say I don't know this. But maybe if you did some research instead of arguing that everyone except yourself is wrong, you would realize there are valid points to both sides.

Embryonic stem cell research also focuses on umbilical cords and placentas, which does no harm to the baby whatsoever. Now none of you can say that's "murder" or against your religion because I'm Roman Catholic, which is one of the main religions against stem cell research and I am personally all for it.

Now if embryos

Enough about manipulating death and being religiously wrong. Enough said, simple as that.

A novel called "Living Proof" just came out in stores this week that explores the life and death issue of embryonic stem cell research for the first time as a story. It's getting a lot of buzz online and pertains directly to this discussion.

Most say stem cell research is bad because scientists are trying to pay God, but that's a bunch of crap. Like what others have said, God created us, knowing that one day we would come up with this knowledge to maybe find cures. Somebody else stated that we are ungrateful because we want to use this research, but that's not entirely true, because we are grateful for this new research to cure people like me. Yes I said me. I'm a 16 year old diabetic. I may not suffer as much as others with other diseases, but I have.

Also, this same person said that we should be the ones serving overseas. Well, if you've paid attention, we can't because

Anyway, most don't know what it's like to stick a big needle into their own skin every day, but I do. They also don't know what its like to wake up very weak due to a low blood sugar, or to throw up because you get ketones due to not having any more insulin going through their body.

Lastly, most of you probably aren't scared to go to bed, knowing that you might not wake up because you went low, with no one knowing and died. Yes, I know diabetes isn't the worse disease out there, but it's not easy either. I don't really like abortion, but at least the fetus could help cure many people, and not just get thrown away.

In a way, the government not allowing stem cell research, and the people against it can be considered murderers too, because they are standing in the way of curing people, which could save their lives. This is how our country is going downhill, not the other way around.

Finally, you say how a human life is so important, and yes it is, but who's to say that an animal's life isn't? People abuse animals, use them to test new products, that most people use, but I don't see you caring about that. Yes, some people do, but most don't give a crap. And I mean, didn't God create animals too, so shouldn't they be just as important as humans?

Yeah, so that's all I have to say. Hopefully this will make people use their brains a little more, because the people who are against it only really seem to care about themselves, not the people who are actually suffering!

The controversy surrounding the morality of stem cell research is centered around the creation, usage, and destruction of the human embryos. Currently, the limits of technological advancement require the destruction of the human embryo in creating the human embryonic stem cell. Various groups view an embryo as an early-aged human life. As a result, they are concerned with the rights and status of the embryo, and often go so far as to equate such research with murder because of the embryos destruction. However, despite scientific evidence suggesting that the early-stage embryos being used are not early-aged human life, the importance of these embryonic stem cells and their contribution to scientific advancement is tremendous.

Stem cells are cells in the human

John Stuart Mills principle of Utilitarianism also supports the morality of stem cell research. Utilitarianism states that an actions moral worth is determined solely by its contribution to the happiness of all parties involved. The phrase the greatest good for the greatest number of people is often used to describe this principle. But more precisely, the true morality of such research is exhibited in the concept of Negative Utilitarianism. Negative Utilitarianism requires us to promote the least amount of harm, or prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number of people.

Since science has established that are embryos not yet human, any harm inflicted on them does not weigh in on the moral worth of the action. However, the development of treatments that could potentially cure conditions such as Parkinsons disease and Alzheimers would weigh in on its moral worth. As a result, the prevention of suffering made possible by stem cell research and its potential medical advancements far outweigh any harm inflicted on the embryos, even if the embryos were given moral standing. Thus, by means of Negative Utilitarianism, the morality of stem cell research cannot be called into question.

This is modern day fascism. You shouldn't choose what life has more importance. Speaking as a veteran, people like this make me regret serving an ungrateful country, full of morally degraded people. These people who believe in this should have been the ones overseas. Then tell me how easy it is to choose one life over the other. Those people make me sick, and will be the downfall of this country.

Fundamentalists never fail to amaze me with their ability to only read half the story. The embryos used in stem cell research would be discarded anyway - stem cell research isn't denying them a chance at life, they had no chance at life in the first place. It isn't the same thing as abortion.

And I hope the fundies who are making comments along the lines of "We suffer because God wills it" never take antibiotics when they are sick - surely that would be messing with God's plan for you to die from a disease that modern science can easily cure?

Any opponent to stem cell research on the grounds of all this embryo is a human life crap is nothing but a ignorant idiotic hypocrite and the same goes for anti abortionists.

Why claim to give a crap at all about so called life when none of you seem to give a crap about the starving millions in underdeveloped countries, the starving on the street, those on death row etc.? What about those lives? Aren't they more convincing examples of 'life' than a pile of embryonic goo? Are they not deserving of all the fuss you make over the value of human life?

You people seem more concerned with spouting your ignorant, selfish beliefs and halting progress that could one

Is there any difference between you people in regards to this and those that shared the same beliefs that used to carry out witch hunts all those many years ago? one has to wonder.

i think that stem cell affords advancements to the medical industry. people should stop trying to use the phrase "who are we to play god". if that is the case then don't take medication to relieve pain because under those conditions would that also be playing god?

Remember that some stem cells are taken from the umbilical cord and adult tissue, not just embryos. You wouldn't call it murder if the cells were taken from an inanimate piece of flesh, would you?

I have been reading comments and "playing god" is stupid. Getting and giving shots are playing god implants and anything like that is playing god. you're not letting what happens happen. I read about a wife with four kids with Cystic Fibrosis. finding a cure for that would be playing god. That would be taking his power to save a child.

I think it's all right. People are going to abort fetuses no matter what you say or how you feel. You can say it's wrong and waste it or you can use it to support something new and know you helped to save a life. Would you honestly say that because of what you think you should throw away something that could help people just because its from something not even alive yet?

O.K. so it might be alive, but at an older age in the pregnancy. And people are right: if someone you love was dying, you would not just sit there and watch and say, oh well, too bad for you. You would try to help no matter what the cost.

I don't know what is so bad about trying to save life. Stem cell research has advanced into the stages of using actual cells from adults, (Somatic cells) and this is pushing research today. Take some time and do the "current" research about stem cells and educate yourselves.

As far as the religious perspective goes I am a Christian and "God" gave me the cells in my body and if those cells that "God" gave have a way of saving my life, then that is his will. Helping your body heal is not playing God, it is using what God gave you!

I'm curious; What defines something as "live"? When does life begin? Well, does it not begin at fertilization when the cells go through meiosis? And the DNA is replicated? Well here's what I have to say.

Again, what defines something as a "Live" human? Is it size? Level of development? Environment?

Degree of dependency?

If it's based on size, then isn't that size-ism? Does that mean our society is saying that the unborn aren't human because they aren't as big as us? Yes, an unborn baby isn't as big as a toddler, but a toddler isn't as big as a full grown adult. So does that mean that they toddler isn't human either? Or in any way less human

Level of development: Some argue that since the unborn aren't fully developed yet, they aren't human. I'm 15 and I'm not fully developed; does that mean I'm not human? No. I'm still growing. Development doesn't stop at birth. It starts at conception.

The most common argument in this category is the baby can't think, or feel pain, or even know that they exist. I beg to differ. There was an article published in a newspaper that said a doctor was performing an abortion, and on the screen, you could see the baby trying to get away from the tool trying to pull it out. In another, there was a case where the baby stuck its hand out and held onto the doctor's finger. Look it up.

We say that they can't feel pain, so they aren't human. But what about those with Sepa disease? They are born unable to feel pain; can we go and kill them too? They can't feel pain so they aren't human, so it's okay, right? Wrong.

Environment: Most common argument: The unborn baby isn't in the world yet, it's in the mother's body, and it doesn't even breathe air. This argument seems to be saying that the unborn child isn't human because it's in a different environment then we are. But, since when does where we are, determine who we are? In our day to day lives, we change our environment multiple times. But it doesn't change who we are as a person, unless you have a multiple personality disorder.

So here's a question; How does the eight-inch trip down the birth canal change who you are as a blob of tissue, into a valued human being with rights? Truth be told, it doesn't. Another argument is the unborn baby is in the mother's body, which is her body, so the mother should be able to do what ever she wants with that baby. So what's the difference between a baby the day before it's born, and one day after?

A day before: Not fully developed; dependent on the mother; in the mother's body -- her property.

A day after: Not fully developed; dependent on the mother; in the mother's house -- her property

What makes it okay to kill the one but not the other?

There was a case where a man went and murdered a pregnant woman and was charged with double murder. In that case, the government and court are considering that fetus is a life with value. However, in the same time, something like 32 abortions were performed under the protection of the law. How come those babies don't get the same justification? Is it because they aren't wanted? If an orphan was murdered, would no one care because they weren't wanted? Of course not. It's absurd to me the double standard in our society.

Degree of Dependency: Arguments are that if the unborn baby is still dependent on the mother, and can't survive on their own yet, they aren't human. Even a one week old baby is still dependent on the mother. It will be for a while.

Once again, I'm 15 and I can't survive on my own. I depend on my parents. I depend on my government and school system, I depend on my friends. I'm dependent. But do I not have value and rights?

What about those who depend on medical instruments? And life support?

Parents depend on others to provide them with jobs, food and money, with places for their children to go to get an education. Our classrooms are getting smaller and smaller due to the number of abortions each year. But again, does this affect a person's humanity in some way because they depend on someone? You're going through a divorce and you need someone to lean on; you're depending on them. Oh, yeah, sorry for the bad timing, but oh geez this is tough, you're not human, so we're going to have to kill you. No, I don't think so.

What about those on welfare? Can we kill them too because they depend on the government to provide them with money? I don't think so. We are all dependent on someone to a degree. But who goes around saying that those who depend on someone are less human or not human at all? No one. Why? Because it's hypocritical and illogical. But somehow, our society is able to accept this argument when it comes to unborn children. The faces of tomorrow. We are the people are today, and we're killing tomorrow's people.

So if we use these arguments to allow the killing of the unborn, then we should be allowed to kill: Any child; those on welfare; those with medical tools and medications; those with mental disabilities. They aren't what people consider "the norm"- are very dependent, usually have a difference in size, aren't developed as much as those who are not disabled, and depending on the case, their environment may be different then ours. And so on and so forth.

Of course not. We would never dream of doing that. It upsets many many people even using those cases as examples. So it should be clear that the unborn are human, as well as those with developmental disabilities, differences, different circumstances- welfare, etc., and the sick.

For people who don't understand, here is what I'm saying. I am pro choice- that women should have choices to do what they want in life from the unimportant (what flavor of ice cream I want) to the extremely important (what career I want to pursue) but should not have the "right" to make a choice about another person's life. You don't get to decide who lives or dies.

I do not believe we should use stem cells. If we can cure all diseases and grow back body parts then we will evidently live a very, very, very long time. This could potentially result in an overpopulation problem which we are currently starting to experience.

Humans were not meant to live forever, and maybe you should ask yourself: do you really want to live forever?

To those people who say that it's okay for scientists to do stem cell research, yes it's okay for them to do research to improve other people's lives without using stupid, dangerous chemicals on the cells. Some aspects of stem cell research, is not just against religious values, but also against our morals in general.

Thank you anon332, for trying to knock some sense into these people, who think that science always does good things. Wake up!

Religion is a vessel of our hopes, fears and a face of the unexplained. Without religion, science would grow like a cancer, and without science the other way around. Balance is what is needed.

For those who believe in God, it would not be that with stem cells we are playing God. The man or woman will live because God had willed it.

For those who don't, embryos are lives. A full life. Of course, this is only my opinion.

The world makes us what we are. It influences our choices and our minds. Everything around us at every moment is changing us.

In short, the world makes us what we are, but we make the world as how it is.

Science without religion is blasphemous. Religion without science is idiocy.

I believe stem cell research is definitely a good thing for people that are sick. I don't think people should be allowed to use a fetus for the research, but embryonic research is ethical. The embryo isn't yet developing human characteristics the way a fetus is.

I will begin by saying that I am a 14 year old girl of undecided religious beliefs. I have read many of these comments, and I have a few ideas which may help/clear up some misconceptions.

As of now, I do not officially believe in God. I do, however, understand many religions and I have accepted religious beliefs and ideas, especially those pertaining to abortion and stem cell research. Here are some of my views on the subject. I have tried to incorporate all the different positions on the subject:

1. Embryos are not fetuses and stem cell research is not the same as abortion. Fetuses are developed forms in which the cells have begun to specialize. Embryos are clusters

2. If an embryo is not used, it can be donated, either to research or to another parent, or it can be thrown away. Based on the dilemmas that seem to be arising, i am assuming that no one is of the belief that throwing away the embryos is in the best interest of anyone. That leaves donation to a parent or donation to research. If the decision is made to donate to another parent, then I think that is fine. If that idea is declined, then I don't see why a group of cells shouldn't be used to potentially help others. If a leftover embryo is just going to be thrown away, then why would the people throwing it away care if it were used. Remember, an embryo does not have even the most remote form of a brain or a heart.

3. If the argument is about whether or not the embryo has a soul, I cannot help. I do not believe that a random grouping of cells has a soul. I do not even necessarily believe in souls.

4. In this article, it says that the most common argument against stem cells is the belief in man not manipulating human life. I cannot say whether or not this is actually the big argument, but for those people who do believe that i will ask, "Have you been vaccinated? Have you ever taken any medicine for an illness? Is this not manipulating life?". If one believes that Man should not be allowed to manipulate life, then they should also believe that medicines and known cures should not be used. if a person gets pneumonia, should the doctors just let them die because they don't believe in manipulating life? Isn't that murder?

As for manipulating the embryo, I can only repeat that I do not personally believe that a group of unspecialized cells should be treated as humans.

5. I do not believe that stem cell research should be used for cloning. As for "creating another you" in case you get diseases later in life, watch or read "My Sister's Keeper".

6. As for the ethics, there are generally five ethical approaches: utilitarian-whatever does the most good and the least harm, Rights-whatever considers the rights of everyone involved, Fairness of Justice-treats all equally and proportionally, Common good-the values of Confucianism or putting the group before the individual, and Virtue-what will make me more of the person i want to be? If using an organism that is displaying the characteristics of life, but that is not developed into a fetus will help others, I don't see how it contradicts any of the ethical approaches.

6. If I decidedly believed in God, I would say, "God made us. I believe he made us for a reason. He gave us prayer and life. He also gave us doctors and medicine. we should use them".

7. For those who say "if your loved one was dying, then your view would change" you are correct. Their view would change, but do we really want a society where people make official decisions based on the health status of their loved ones, when they are stressed and not thinking clearly?

These are the things I have come up with. I didn't mean to offend anyone with my statements, and if I did, I am sorry.

Yeah, they are not using a fetus. they are using an embryo, which there is a huge difference.

Number one, they are not using a fetus; which i agree is human. The embryos used for stem cell research are four to five days old and have no specialized tissues, no nervous system, or heart. Each embryo contains about one-hundred cells, the cells of which are still undifferentiated (meaning that the cell has not decided what it is going to be).

For those of you saying that we are playing god. Is not God's greatest gift the gift of life? After IVF a woman has limited choices what to do with her leftover embryos. She may donate to another couple, donate to research, keep the embryos for maybe future implantation, or she may discard them.

Originally posted here:
What is Stem Cell Research? (with pictures) - wisegeek.com

Pros And Cons Of Stem Cell Research – Popular Issues

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Jun 21 2018

Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - What are Stem Cells? There has been much controversy in the press recently about the pros and cons of stem cell research. What is the controversy all about? "Stem" cells can be contrasted with "differentiated" cells. They offer much hope for medical advancement because of their ability to grow into almost any kind of cell. For instance, neural cells in the brain and spinal cord that have been damaged can be replaced by stem cells. In the treatment of cancer, cells destroyed by radiation or chemotherapy can be replaced with new healthy stem cells that adapt to the affected area, whether it be part of the brain, heart, liver, lungs, or wherever. Dead cells of almost any kind, no matter the type of injury or disease, can be replaced with new healthy cells thanks to the amazing flexibility of stem cells. As a result, billions of dollars are being poured into this new field.

Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - Where Do They Come From? To understand the pros and cons of stem cell research, one must first understand where stem cells come from. There are three main sources for obtaining stem cells - adult cells, cord cells, and embryonic cells. Adult stem cells can be extracted either from bone marrow or from the peripheral system. Bone marrow is a rich source of stem cells. However, some painful destruction of the bone marrow results from this procedure. Peripheral stem cells can be extracted without damage to bones, but the process takes more time. And with health issues, time is often of the essence. Although difficult to extract, since they are taken from the patient's own body, adult stem cells are superior to both umbilical cord and embryonic stem cells. They are plentiful. There is always an exact DNA match so the body's immune system never rejects them. And as we might expect, results have been both profound and promising.

Stem cells taken from the umbilical cord are a second very rich source of stem cells. Umbilical cells can also offer a perfect match where a family has planned ahead. Cord cells are extracted during pregnancy and stored in cryogenic cell banks as a type of insurance policy for future use on behalf of the newborn. Cord cells can also be used by the mother, the father or others. The more distant the relationship, the more likely it is that the cells will be rejected by the immune system's antibodies. However, there are a number of common cell types just as there are common blood types so matching is always possible especially where there are numerous donors. The donation and storage process is similar to blood banking. Donation of umbilical cells is highly encouraged. Compared to adult cells and embryonic cells, the umbilical cord is by far the richest source of stem cells, and cells can be stored up in advance so they are available when needed. Further, even where there is not an exact DNA match between donor and recipient, scientists have developed methods to increase transferability and reduce risk.

Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - Embryonic Cells The pros and cons of stem cell research come to the surface when we examine the third source of stem cells - embryonic cells. Embryonic stem cells are extracted directly from an embryo before the embryo's cells begin to differentiate. At this stage the embryo is referred to as a "blastocyst." There are about 100 cells in a blastocyst, a very large percentage of which are stem cells, which can be kept alive indefinitely, grown in cultures, where the stem cells continue to double in number every 2-3 days. A replicating set of stem cells from a single blastocyst is called a "stem cell line" because the genetic material all comes from the same fertilized human egg that started it. President Bush authorized federal funding for research on the 15 stem cell lines available in August 2001. Other stem cell lines are also available for research but without the coveted assistance of federal funding.

So what is the controversy all about? Those who value human life from the point of conception, oppose embryonic stem cell research because the extraction of stem cells from this type of an embryo requires its destruction. In other words, it requires that a human life be killed. Some believe this to be the same as murder. Against this, embryonic research advocates argue that the tiny blastocyst has no human features. Further, new stem cell lines already exist due to the common practice of in vitro fertilization. Research advocates conclude that many fertilized human cells have already been banked, but are not being made available for research. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research claim new human lives will not be created for the sole purpose of experimentation.

Others argue against such research on medical grounds. Mice treated for Parkinson's with embryonic stem cells have died from brain tumors in as much as 20% of cases.1 Embryonic stem cells stored over time have been shown to create the type of chromosomal anomalies that create cancer cells.2 Looking at it from a more pragmatic standpoint, funds devoted to embryonic stem cell research are funds being taken away from the other two more promising and less controversial types of stem cell research mentioned above.

Learn More Now!

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

Visit link:
Pros And Cons Of Stem Cell Research - Popular Issues

Stem Cell Basics II. | stemcells.nih.gov

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Jun 21 2018

Stem cells differ from other kinds of cells in the body. All stem cellsregardless of their sourcehave three general properties: they are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods; they are unspecialized; and they can give rise to specialized cell types.

Stem cells are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods. Unlike muscle cells, blood cells, or nerve cellswhich do not normally replicate themselvesstem cells may replicate many times, or proliferate. A starting population of stem cells that proliferates for many months in the laboratory can yield millions of cells. If the resulting cells continue to be unspecialized, like the parent stem cells, the cells are said to be capable of long-term self-renewal.

Scientists are trying to understand two fundamental properties of stem cells that relate to their long-term self-renewal:

Discovering the answers to these questions may make it possible to understand how cell proliferation is regulated during normal embryonic development or during the abnormal cell division that leads to cancer. Such information would also enable scientists to grow embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells more efficiently in the laboratory.

The specific factors and conditions that allow stem cells to remain unspecialized are of great interest to scientists. It has taken scientists many years of trial and error to learn to derive and maintain stem cells in the laboratory without them spontaneously differentiating into specific cell types. For example, it took two decades to learn how to grow human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory following the development of conditions for growing mouse stem cells. Likewise, scientists must first understand the signals thatenable a non-embryonic (adult)stem cell population to proliferate and remain unspecialized before they will be able to grow large numbers of unspecialized adult stem cells in the laboratory.

Stem cells are unspecialized. One of the fundamental properties of a stem cell is that it does not have any tissue-specific structures that allow it to perform specialized functions. For example, a stem cell cannot work with its neighbors to pump blood through the body (like a heart muscle cell), and it cannot carry oxygen molecules through the bloodstream (like a red blood cell). However, unspecialized stem cells can give rise to specialized cells, including heart muscle cells, blood cells, or nerve cells.

Stem cells can give rise to specialized cells. When unspecialized stem cells give rise to specialized cells, the process is called differentiation. While differentiating, the cell usually goes through several stages, becoming more specialized at each step. Scientists are just beginning to understand the signals inside and outside cells that trigger each step of the differentiation process. The internal signals are controlled by a cell's genes, which are interspersed across long strands of DNA and carry coded instructions for all cellular structures and functions. The external signals for cell differentiation include chemicals secreted by other cells, physical contact with neighboring cells, and certain molecules in the microenvironment. The interaction of signals during differentiation causes the cell's DNA to acquire epigenetic marks that restrict DNA expression in the cell and can be passed on through cell division.

Many questions about stem cell differentiation remain. For example, are the internal and external signals for cell differentiation similar for all kinds of stem cells? Can specific sets of signals be identified that promote differentiation into specific cell types? Addressing these questions may lead scientists to find new ways to control stem cell differentiation in the laboratory, thereby growing cells or tissues that can be used for specific purposes such as cell-based therapies or drug screening.

Adult stem cells typically generate the cell types of the tissue in which they reside. For example, a blood-forming adult stem cell in the bone marrow normally gives rise to the many types of blood cells. It is generally accepted that a blood-forming cell in the bone marrowwhich is called a hematopoietic stem cellcannot give rise to the cells of a very different tissue, such as nerve cells in the brain. Experiments over the last several years have purported to show that stem cells from one tissue may give rise to cell types of a completely different tissue. This remains an area of great debate within the research community. This controversy demonstrates the challenges of studying adult stem cells and suggests that additional research using adult stem cells is necessary to understand their full potential as future therapies.

Previous|II. What are the unique properties of all stem cells?|Next

View post:
Stem Cell Basics II. | stemcells.nih.gov

Researchers Turn Skin Cells into Motor Neurons Without Using Stem Cells – Futurism

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Sep 08 2017

Cellular Renovation

Why build something from the ground up when one can just renovate an already existing structure? Essentially, thats what researchers from the University of Washington School of Medicine in St. Louis had in mind when they developed a method for transforming adult human skin cells into motor neurons in a lab. They published their work in the journal Cell Stem Cell.

In this study, we only used skin cells from healthy adults ranging in age from early 20s to late 60s, senior author Andrew S. Yoo said in a press release. Our research revealed how small RNA molecules can work with other cell signals called transcription factors to generate specific types of neurons, in this case motor neurons. In the future, we would like to study skin cells from patients with disorders of motor neurons. Our conversion process should model late-onset aspects of the disease using neurons derived from patients with the condition.

They did this by exposing skin cells in a lab to certain molecular signals usually found at high levels in the human brain. They focused on two short snippets of RNA: microRNAs (mRNAs) called miR-9 and miR-124, which are involved in repurposing the genetic instructions of the cell. These mRNAs, combined with certain transcription factors, successfully turned skin cells into spinal cord motor neurons within just 30 days. These new cells closely resembled normal mouse motor neurons in terms of which genes were turned on and off, and how they functioned.

Usually, when researchers find ways to replace damaged cells or organs, they resort to using stem cells. In particular, they use embryonic stem cells (a type of pluripotent stem cells) to grow the cells or organs needed.

While this type of stem cell has the potential to grow into whatever adult cell type is needed, the procedure carries some ethical concerns. In bypassing a stem cell phase, the new cell transformation technique doesnt have any of these ethical issues.

Keeping the original age of the converted cells can be crucial for studying neurodegenerative diseases that lead to paralysis, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and spinal muscular atrophy, the condition the new research focused on. In particular, researchers hope that it could enhance the understanding of these diseases in order to improve regenerative medicine.

Going back through a pluripotent stem cell phase is a bit like demolishing a house and building a new one from the ground up, Yoo explained. What were doing is more like renovation. We change the interior but leave the original structure, which retains the characteristics of the aging adult neurons that we want to study.

Like embryonic stem cells, the technique can also allow for converting human skin cells into other cell types by using different transcription factors. Before this technique can be applied to actual humans with neurodegenerative diseases, the researchers still need to find out how much the cells made in their lab match native human motor neurons. Still, its a promising start.

Read this article:
Researchers Turn Skin Cells into Motor Neurons Without Using Stem Cells - Futurism

Stem Cell Factor Tied to Reduced Risk of Cardiac Events, Death – Anti Aging News

Stell Cell Research | Posted by admin
Sep 08 2017

407 0 Posted on Sep 07, 2017, 9 a.m.

High levels of stem cell factor (SCF) are associated with reduced risk of mortality and cardiovascular events, according to a study published online Aug. 26 in theJournal of Internal Medicine.

(HealthDay News) -- High levels of stem cell factor (SCF) are associated with reduced risk of mortality and cardiovascular events, according to a study published online Aug. 26 in theJournal of Internal Medicine.

Harry Bjrkbacka, Ph.D., from Lund University in Sweden, and colleagues examined the correlation between circulating levels of SCF and risk for development of cardiovascular events and death. SCF was analyzed from plasma from 4,742 participants in the Malm Diet and Cancer Study; participants were followed for a mean of 19.2 years.

The researchers found that participants with high baseline levels of SCF had lower cardiovascular and all-cause mortality and reduced risk of heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction. There was a correlation for smoking, diabetes, and high alcohol consumption with lower levels of SCF. After adjustment for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, the highest versus the lowest SCF quartile remained independently associated with lower risk of cardiovascular (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.81) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.81) and with lower risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.8) and stroke (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.92) but not myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.27).

"The findings provide clinical support for a protective role of SCF in maintaining cardiovascular integrity," the authors write.

The possibilities that stem cell therapies present in the prevention, regeneration, and treatment of many health conditions seem to be still untouched. If course, stem cell research is still ongoing and no one is complete stem cell expert yet, but maybe thats a good approach to take. I am not so sure I would be comfortable in this modern area of easily accessible information with a physician that still doesnt consider his or her self a student. Whether your doctor is 65 or 38 I hope they are still open to learning, stated Dr. Ronald Klatz, President of the A4M.

Read the rest here:
Stem Cell Factor Tied to Reduced Risk of Cardiac Events, Death - Anti Aging News