The Future of Stem Cell Research?

National Review Online:  Ever since the debate of embryo-destructive stem-cell research began in earnest in 1998 when researchers at the University of Wisconsin first isolated human embryonic stem cells, we’ve known that the best overall answer to the ethical impasse would be a solution that both allows the search for stem-cell related cures to go foreword, while doing so without harming or destroying embryonic human life in the process.

We now have that solution.

Two major scientific papers published today in Science and Cell offer proof of principle research to show that it is possible to generate patient-matched pluripotent stem cells without human cloning and its attendant moral pitfalls: the need to harvest and use human eggs from female donors and the subsequent destruction of cloned human embryos. Both studies used reprogramming of adult human cells to generate stem cells known as “induced pluripotent state cells” (iPSCs) that have all the properties of human embryonic stem cells.

When the President’s Council on Bioethics reported in 2005 on a number of alternative sources of the kinds of cells scientists were after — pluripotent cells, or cells with the capability of giving rise to all human tissue types for eventual therapeutic applications — one of those alternatives was hailed, hands down, as the best all-around solution: cell reprogramming. “We find this proposal to be ethically unproblematic,” wrote the Council members, “and acceptable for use in humans, if and when it becomes scientifically practical.”  CONTINUED

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Where ya been, Pigeon?"

Sorry, readers... it's term paper and final exam time here at the zoo.  Plus, when you add some holiday leave to the mix, December's going to be a spotty writing month for this bird!

But enough of my flimsy excuses and back to the article.  In short, this is mint!

As said some months back, I have no moral qualms with stem cell research:  for me, the lose of an undeveloped one to help thousands isn't a tough ethical choice.

In other words, if I were paralyzed from the neck down and learned the only thing between me and walking was someone else's religion, I'd be pretty damn hot.

But this, this - I hope - is the development that solves moral quandaries; let alone I also like the idea of having my own DNA guts used to patch me up, rather than some goop cooked up from disparate sources.

In addition, although I don't come close to qualifying as a physical scientist, it seems there'd be long term physical issues to consider if all our ailments were fixed from a limited line of embryonic stem cells.  As MOGS would say, "I'm just sayin'..."

Still, even if we use our own parts, are we still "playing God" by modifying ourselves?  And God aside, are there long term scientific implications from even using our own genetics?  Would a biological Pandora's Box open?

Finally, as MOGS asked me, "how long 'til someone weaponizes this?" 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.