Another genetics article (not fish)

[ScottT1980]

Some really crazy events in the realm of science and genetics...

They have now converted an embryonic stem cell into a primordial sperm cell, developed the sperm to maturation, and the fertilized eggs with them. This is a HUGE step as far as embryonic stem cell research is concerned. Like everything else in the field, it can either be a great thing, a horrible thing, or both. Nevertheless, being the reproduction guy that I am (and I mean that in the academic sense guys/gals), I thought some might be interested.


Here is the link!

Take er easy
Scott T.

[tankgirl]

Interesting article!!!

[Craig Manoukian]

There is absolutely no substantited proof the embryonic stem cells have better theraputic capability than adult stem cells. Bone marrow is an adult stem cell therapy that works extremely well for example.

Embryonic stem cell research is nothing more than the commercialization of humans and that is something people were enraged with when Hitler did research on the Jews.

[NaH2O]

Hmmmm....I have a science background, and that's as far as I'm going to take this comment...this could turn into a big debate. I do agree with the statement that Scott made, "this can be a really great thing or a horrible thing."

[ScottT1980]

Yeah, Iw asn't trying to make it a debate, just trying to present the information. But, I see nothing wrong with anyone's opinion so just keep it impersonal and all will go smoothly

BTW Craig, you are right. I think the issue is that embryonic stem cells are easier to obtain. Whether it is ethical to obtain them is where the debate lies, and that I will leave alone

Take er easy
Scott T.

[mredman]

I work in the biotechnology field and feel very proud that this industry sector has introduced new drugs in the last 20 years that have addressed significant unmet needs in terrible diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and others.

The best insulin products on the market are produced from human pancreas cells. Just two years ago, the best products for rheumatoid arthritis were derivatives of Ibuprofen (non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDS). Today, fully humanized monoclonal antibodies produced in mice make lessen the burden of this horrible disease.

While a minority of scientists feel that we can develop drugs without the use of embryonic stem cells, the majority differs in opinion.

What is more important is how we use drugs. We can make the same argument with guns, liquor or even reef keeping. Abuse of any product or technology can lead to problems.

We can't stop the development of technology. In the future, every human being will have their complete genome identified on a chip. Scientists will be able to identify the diseases that you are prone to contract and will result in earlier diagnosis or even total prevention of a disease.

Fifty or so years ago, many people argued that making penicillin was overplaying the role of God. Without this drug, and all of its successive generations, millions of people would have died of infections. In fact, each one of us may not have been here at all because our parents or grandparents may have died due to an infection.

Responsibility is the answer. I don't like to read about rogue groups that claim they have cloned babies. But I rejoice when I hear that a patient was able to live due to modern technology.

Below, I am quoting a letter that was sent by Carl Feldbaum, the president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization to president George W. Bush:

"In contrast to work with adult cells, the enormous promise and potential therapeutic value of human embryonic stem cells is based on a substantial body of research generated over the past 20 years with mouse embryonic stem cells. This research and the existing work on human embryonic stem cells strongly suggest that embryonic stem cells are capable of generating many, if not all, of the cell types that make up a human organism, but that these cells by themselves

cannot form an adult organism. Most important, mouse embryonic stem cells have been used in a variety of "proof of therapeutic principle" experiments in several animal models of human disease. For example, these cells appear to be able to produce neural progenitors that can repair spinal cord damage and reconstitute various types of brain cells. If reproducible with human embryonic stem cells, we may be able to treat Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. We may also be able to produce bone marrow cells to treat cancer and other diseases, and pancreatic cells to alleviate diabetes. In fact, we may be on the verge of a new era of medicine, one in which cell therapy could help restore normal function to a variety of affected tissues.

The majority of Americans support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. A nationwide poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation International found that 74% of those queried favor funding of stem cell research by the NIH. This is born out by strong bipartisan congressional support for this research from all political perspectives. It is also important to note that while private firms are already conducting research on pluripotent stem cells, these firms are limited in number, which limits the pace of discovery.

While we recognize the legitimate issues raised by this research, it is also true that the embryonic stem cells being used in research will be discarded in any case. Under these circumstances, it would be tragic to waste this opportunity to pursue the work that can potentially help millions of people in need. Ethical safeguards developed by the NIH respect both the moral status of the embryo and public sensitivity to this issue, while ensuring that progress in critical medical research continues. Given the great hope that stem cell research provides to those who are suffering or dying from devastating illnesses, we urge you to allow this research to move forward with federal support."

Craig, don't take me the wrong way, but just as you commit to make people rich, my commitment in this industry is to add to the quality of human life. My company is engaged in a cellular autologous T-cell mediated approach to multiple sclerosis. While our industry jargon may not be well understood by people outside the industry, the biotechnology sector is using what we know to find better therapies for people suffering from terrible diseases. Sometimes our own peptides, proteins, or stem cells make a better therapy than attempting to find small molecules that have clinical efficacy but often come with substantial side effects. A molecular approach to medicine will result in a greater percentage of patients who respond to drug therapy, fewer side effects and better long term success.

And here I thought I came home to escape for a few hours........thinking about my reef tank!!!

Mike

[mredman]

On a lighter note, embryonic stem cells are a lot like one of my favorite characters!

[NaH2O]

Oh, Mike....you crack me up!! Check your PM box, please!

[Craig Manoukian]

With embryonic stem cells you have to take a life to save another. Win - Lose.

Adult stem cells allow two beings to continue to prosper. Win - Win.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or quote any medical things to figure that out, eh?

[mredman]

Craig, we are entering a very debated issue. Many couples are elated when they are helped by fertility clinics. But when fertility clinics inject an embryo, they produce several fertilized embryos because the success rate with one implant is relatively low. When successful implanyation to the endometrial lining is achieved, the remaining embryos are discarded. One side may argue a life was created but the counter-argument is that many lives (embryos) were lost.

Today, the source of embryonic stem cells are the "overflow" of embryos that are no longer needed to achieve in vitro fertilization.

Therefore, if one believes that discarding the remaining embryos is morally wrong, what is the alternative?

If one uses the discarded embryos to try to find a cure for Alzeimers's, would this scenario be wrong?

Mike

Mike

[SaltyQueen]

The majority of Americans support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Maybe so, but did the survey also ask how many Amercans actually understand what stem cell research entails? Most probably are not aware of the details.

Also, perhaps now researchers are only using "leftover" embryos from invitro fertilization, but will this practice continue once these "miracle cures" are developed??? Highly unlikely. If researchers are able to find cures for dibetes & arthritis via stem cells, you can bet the pharmaceutical industry will be all over this, with dollar signs gleaming in their eyes. They are going to want to produce a LOT of these medications, which will take a LOT of embryos. Eventually, the supply of "leftover" embryos won't be sufficient, and they will need to produce more- thus you will have the "farming" of embryos.

This may sound horrible & far-fetched, but I would hope no one is under the impression that drug companies develop & market new medications because they are "concerned" about the ill or for any other altruistic reasons. They are willing to spend millions to make billions. Have you ever seen the price of interferon injections for rheumatoid arthritis??? Over $1,000 for 4 injections (a 1 month supply)!!! Do you know how much money is made off of prescription medications for diabetes alone? It is mind boggling.

Bottom line: As an RN, I would like nothing more than to be able to cure my patients of their ailments, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I took an oath to nurture & protect human life, no matter how "differentiated" it may be. When embryonic stem cell research finds a cure for diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, cerebral palsy, or whatever, the drug companies will be there to mass market it, and they will not be concerned about the ethics of producing & discarding human embryos because, with dollar signs in their eyes, they won't be able to see the potential lives they are "discarding."

*Stepping off soapbox now... *

[NaH2O]

Originally posted by SaltyQueen

If researchers are able to find cures for dibetes & arthritis via stem cells, you can bet the pharmaceutical industry will be all over this, with dollar signs gleaming in their eyes. They are going to want to produce a LOT of these medications, which will take a LOT of embryos. Eventually, the supply of "leftover" embryos won't be sufficient, and they will need to produce more- thus you will have the "farming" of embryos.

You know.....I see what you are saying, but I doubt that the majority of pharmaceutical company owners are sitting behind their desks with dollar signs gleaming in their eyes (I'm not saying there aren't any, but IMO the majority do have good intentions). As far as the "farming" of embryos comment....I just don't even want to go there. This is just the beginning of the research....who knows where it will lead....it may not turn out to be what was thought, or it may help millions of people.
You want to talk about dollar signs in the eyes....what about insurance companies that cause the cost of health care to rise? This is another debate, and I REALLY don't want to get involved in it.

This may sound horrible & far-fetched, but I would hope no one is under the impression that drug companies develop & market new medications because they are "concerned" about the ill or for any other altruistic reasons. They are willing to spend millions to make billions. Have you ever seen the price of interferon injections for rheumatoid arthritis??? Over $1,000 for 4 injections (a 1 month supply)!!! Do you know how much money is made off of prescription medications for diabetes alone? It is mind boggling.

I'm aware of the cost of health care and certain drugs...I watched my mother suffer from cancer for 4 years. You better believe we were researching ALL possibilities for her quality of life. In the end she was part of a research group at Northwestern, and I hope she was able to provide some data for their results.

I talk with an owner of a Pharmaceutical company, and I don't think there is a greedy bone in his body....more like a very caring bone in his body that is trying to find cures for diseases that are very debilitating.

As mredman stated...Responsibility is the answer.

*Alright...I'll step off my soapbox now*

[mredman]

Saltyqueen,

I am not aware of any interferon treatments used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. If you are referring to Enbrel, this product is a humanized monoclonal antibody.

Your inference may be multiple sclerosis, which is treated by Avonex. This drug is a beta interferon and requires a weekly injection. The cost is about $1000 per month. This drug is a very complicated drug. The manufacturing method requires chinese hamster ovarian (CHO) cells to produce the product.

The American public demands safe and efficacious drugs and the FDA requires significant testing before approval. Many drugs lose more than 60% of their patent lives just to go through this regulatory process at a cost exceeding $500 million. For each drug that is synthesized at the research level, less than one percent achieve regulatory approval. Many drugs after many millions of dollars of investment are shelved because they do not meet clinical endpoints, have an undesirable side effect profile or do not stack up well against approved products.

If one wants to use old technology drugs, they are available at very cheap pricing. You can also use generics. Because many foreign countries do not honor patents, the only available drugs are old drugs and generics because no incentive exists to develop better drugs with fewer side effects.

Presently, you are able to use chemotherapy products that makes you sick, causes your hair to fall out and the overall side effects of the drug almost exceeds the benefit of the drug therapy. Biotechnology products are now in development that have better efficacy without the related side effects of present day cancer treatments.

These drugs only will be developed in countries where a profit incentive exists. The drug companies report to stockholders, like us reefers. If drug companies don't show a good return on investment, investors will plow their money into alternative sources of income.

If you look at a drug from a financial point of view, you need to assess risks, look at the NPVs and you will see that drug development is a very high undertaking. Ultimately, approved drugs have high profit margins.

It is just like investing your money. The safest bet is a savings account (about 1% return). However, we all can choose riskier investments but the return potential is proportionate to the risk.

However, my hat is always off to the nursing profession, perhaps the hardest working professionals on the planet (next to reefers who maintain their tanks).

Mike

[ScottT1980]

One thing about stem cell lines is that they are immortal (it is in the very definition of a stem cell). Mike, do you know why we don't just have a huge store of these so that more will not be needed? In the case of sperm development, I can understand because people want offspring from their genes. But as far as research goes, shouldn't there be enough stem cells already available. Perhaps it is a genomic diversity thing, they want a more diverse ESC genome? Or is there just a ban on any human ESC research, even if the ESC are already obtained? I remember reading the guidlines somewhere as far as research goes but I can't remember where... I don't know the details as I am more of a reproductive physiologist and so I don't have a good background of the genetics literature.

BTW, the "dangerous" research in my opinion is going on in China where they are actually do embryo transgenics with humans. I will try to find the link, it is pretty appalling (IMO)...

Take er easy
Scott t.

[Craig Manoukian]

We were all an embryo at one point. I just thank God I am able to type this post and I wasn't used for some other theraputic task and my soul/life was snuffed out. I suspect everybody reading this is thankful as well. I think the real problem here is who makes these decisions and where is the moral line where the benefit is not worth the life taken in the case of human embryonic stem cells.

Not to be too rehtorical, but which one of us would volunteer to have our souls just hanging out because you were the extra embryo from invitro fertilization? This is part of the slippery slope when you deal with this stuff. The Constitution of the United States guarantees all of us life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness. We should understand that means all life, every single human embryo.

I am not against the advancement of science to improve our lives, just against the win - lose proposition.

Whare this really gets scary is that there are people who are interested in genetic engineering and creating a designer human being. Let's say you are engineered to be the best basketball player in the world and you have received all of those perfect basketball genes. You are tall, fast, coordinated, and have incredible fast twitch muscle fibers that allow you to jump out of the gym. You are provided the opportunity to go to the best basketball capms to enhance your raw athletic prowess and create unmatched basketball skills. Then one day you come to the realization that you really want to play the violin or the tuba. How much potential disappointment and heart break would result from those initially unrealistic expectations?