Using amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells is an encouraging prospect that could sidestep the moral objections many people have with embryonic stem cells. Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University report that the stem cells from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women offer some of the same flexibility prized in embryonic stem cells. However, because the researchers don’t know how effective and adaptable amniotic stem cells will be, they think there is still a need for embryonic stem-cell research. The finding also is unlikely to change the Democratic Congress’ plan to pass a bill — similar to the one vetoed last year by President Bush — to allow federal research on stem cells from embryos discarded by fertility clinics.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
25 Comments
It’s time to let Congress do the right thing on this.We don’t need or want total nincompoops like Brownbrain telling the world it’s immoral to use frozen embryos that will soon be tossed in the trash.Snowflake babies my ass.If you want to adopt, adopt a living breathing child that desperately needs you.
I hope these amniotic fluid stem cells really hold some promise. As noted above, they would hopefully reduce the moral dilemmas embryonic stem cells present.
Exactly my thoughts Steven.
And naturally, researchers that are already involved in embryonic cell research would want their research to continue. I would expect them to argue that the stem cells from the amnitoic fluid might not work as well as embryonic cells. They have a lot of time invested, and sources of funding they don’t want to dry up.
My personal hope is that the amniotic cells prove as useful or more useful than embryonic cells so that this source of controversy is removed.
“I would expect them to argue that the stem cells from the amnitoic fluid might not work as well as embryonic cells. They have a lot of time invested, and sources of funding they don’t want to dry up.”
As NPR is reporting this morning, they (embryonic stem cell researchers) are saying what you’re saying they will say. I personally doubt they would urge more of their research, due exclusively to funding considerations. I am worried about this field of research being dictated by private funds. Michael Crichton in his latest book, _Next_ outlines the problems with this. The 21st century will be the century of biology and clearly there will be ethical dilemmas presented that we will be scarely able to sort out. Should be interesting.
For the sake of all who hope for cures and treatments all research with all stem cells should go forward. Why should we want to limit any of this promising work? With the exception of work with adult stem cells this work is less than ten years old and already great strides have been made. Adequate funding and time will bring cures and treatments.
Steven, although Creighton’s book is very entertaining you do realize he isn’t a scientist, don’t you?
Outlander, your cynical opinion that researchers using embryonic stem cells only care about their funding is wrong and very sad.
We don’t hear from scientists who are very busy doing their work. In fact when they must stop to write for peers in scientific journals and publications they are usually putting in many extra hours so they can also continue their science. What most of us read — the versions published in our newspapers, Newsweek, Time, USA Today is an interpretation of the scientists published work which is made by someone who isn’t a scientist.
Don’t put dedicated professionals in a category of worrying about their funding. None of our top scientific minds have any worry of their funding “drying up,” and would continue their work even if there was no funding.
People with the time, vengeance and passion to make sound bite comments that are published in our newspapers and news magazines on politically-charged controversial subjects aren’t doing the work of science so they have plenty of time to convince people who will believe what they hear without investigation. All they want published is what will support their agenda. Our scientists are continuing their work and if we don’t buy into the sound bites we’re all going to benefit.
Thank you Linda Inks.What an odd last name.Inks? ;)
“Amniocentesis may be done during your second trimester of pregnancy (between weeks 15 and 18) to detect some birth defects when one or both parents have any of the following risk factors:
You are over age 35. This makes you more likely than a younger woman to have a baby with a problem such as Down syndrome.Either you or the father has a family history of birth defects.Both you and the father are known carriers of an inherited disease, such as Tay-Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, or thalassemia (Mediterranean anemia).You had an abnormal triple or quadruple test. The substances measured in a triple test are alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), and estriol. An additional substance, the hormone Inhibin-A, is measured in the quadruple test.Amniocentesis can be done to determine the sex of your baby. This is important when you or the father may be able to pass on a disease that occurs mainly in one sex (sex-linked), like hemophilia or Duchenne muscular dystrophy, both of which occur mainly in males.
Amniocentesis can be done during your second trimester if blood type incompatibilities are present (such as Rh sensitization). Amniocentesis will usually be done at 27 weeks or before to monitor the severity of the sensitization by measuring the bilirubin level. The test may be repeated every 1 to 2 weeks until delivery. This will help evaluate the health of your baby.
Amniocentesis may be done during your third trimester to:
Determine your baby’s lung maturity. This is done when your baby may need to be delivered early.Determine whether the amniotic fluid is infected (amnionitis).Monitor the health of your baby if Rh sensitization has occurred.”
http://www.webmd.com/hw/being_pregnant/hw1810.asp
Commenting on the quote above, I wonder how viable is amniotic fluid that shows some of the genetic diseases listed above. Would that type of fluid be helpful or could it not be used? I’m not dissing this new option, but I am curious. And I’m just not sure how many women will step up to have an amnio to “donate,” especially considering that it’s not a 100% safe procedure and definitely carries some risks. Nor is it something as simple as giving blood.
Absolutely right RD, there is a greater risk of miscarriage.
Where do such cells originate if not from the fetus? Aren’t they sloughed off? I don’t know, but it seems to me if you can determine the sex/genetic risk of a pregnancy from the fluid, the cells must originate from the fetus; hence; fetal stem cells?
Tracy — It’s linda in ks. A screenname made when I first got a computer and knew even less than I do today. Wherever I made the screen name needed a combo of letters and numbers so I used my age (at the time). Don’t really know how to change it so…
RD, I read someplace (while researching this “announcement” yesterday) that the same amniotic stem cells where available at the time of birth so that takes away the need of amniocentesis to harvest these calls. I don’t know about the whole subject of contamination. I sure hope these calls are everything and more they hope for in these early stages of research! I also hope we support all types of stem cell research and some of our suffering is relieved.
Yesterday’s announcement was conveniently and politically timed. The scientists who are using amniotic stem cells in their research have been doing this for seven years. They didn’t recently publish new discoveries or results. The run-of-the-mill, non-scientific publications ran stories without any new news. Now when you consider the House has increasing the spending on embryonic stem cell research on THIS WEEK’S agenda the timing falls into place AND the sound bites we read seem more like sound bites. Remember a time back when it was discovered the Bush administration hired people to write “news”?
Please don’t think I’m against this research or have less hope that it is the end all to end all. I just think it might be too soon to know and also think people need to think about the timing of the “news.” Stem cell research (of ALL kinds) is our best hope and I believe I will live to see cures and treatments for all kinds of horrible diseases.
I know linda.It’s my wierd brain that always sees it as Linda Inks.
Would be a GREAT ‘pen name’ for a writer though!
The real last name is Murphy and there are lots of days I would trade it for Inks or whatever if it only got me out of living those Murphy’s laws.
I think the concept of stem cell research is great. The idea that we may actually be able to cure some of these horrible diseases is fabulous. that said, I don’t know that amniotic stem cells are going to provide the answer needed – how much is it going to cost to “bank” these cells – similar to the cost to bank cord blood cells? When I had my son two years ago, I was extremely interested in that until I found out how much it is to actually do it – NO WAY can your average middle class family afford it! Donating is a great idea, but less effective – and, not all doctor’s and hospitals participate in cord blood donation, so even though you may want to do it, doesn’t mean you can…
What most conservatives seem to miss is that the people who are asking for funding on embryonic stem cell research are not asking to create new embryos for those cells – they want to use the already existing embryos that fertility clinics throw out like trash. And I say, why not? If you are so concerned about life, wouldn’t you rather these embryo’s be used to possibly save a life rather than just be thrown away? Where is your outrage at that? Put your priorities in place people…
Amniotic stem cells offer some hope – but it is such new research in the grand scheme of things, that yeah, although they found stem cells in amniotic fluid, basic questions such as those RD posed are not answered, and as such, this is really not yet a viable option. Not to mention, I would imagine that the fluid would have to be collected through an amnio, because I don’t see that there would be a safe, sterile way to collect it at the time that water breaks, and amnio’s are not really very safe – they are quite risky, as there is a high chance they can cause labor, or miscarriage, or harm to the baby through punctures or infections or any number of things – Doctors really don’t recommend amnio’s unless you are very high risk because of the risky nature of them… so there are many unanswered questions out there, and i think maybe we shouldn’t get too excited yet becuase it may be that this is not a viable solution…
And I do think the timing of this release is suspect. I feel this is rather more a ploy on the part of conservatives to shoot down the funding initiative again by saying – look we don’t need to use embryo’s for this – problem being,A) we don’t know that yet and B) the methods currently in line for collecting amniotic fluid are much more risky and I would think a much larger ethical dilemma…
SAVE THE SNOWFLAKES….experiment on neocons.
Former First Lady Nancy Reagan is now voicing her strong support for stem cell and human embryonic research, currently opposed by the Bush administration.President Bush isn’t opposed to the research because of any ethical reasons, it’s just that he doesn’t want to have to learn how to pronounce “embryonic.”
The point is that this research has been put off far, far too long for niggling reasons that have nothing to do with the issue. We no longer have the luxury of wasting time in what has degenerated into an ethical turf war between the scientific community and various religious organizations This research needs to proceed on all fronts as rapidly as is scientifically possible.Unless, of course, you consider suffering and slow, painful death a gift from god,in which case, you’re more than welcome to my share!
“Steven, although Creighton’s book is very entertaining you do realize he isn’t a scientist, don’t you?”
Yes. He was trained as a physician, but he has never practiced. So, he is not totally naive about science. After medical school he was the “writer in residence” at MIT. He has written and researched extensively on scientists and physicians.
One of Crichton’s more amusing stories I’ve read, was when Chrichton was a resident, he was taking more notes on how his fellow residents were acting than on the subject matter at hand.
I can find links if need be. But there is a pretty serious misconception that the embryos that are being discarded now could be used in research. That is not correct. It is necessary that the origins (genetically) of stem cell lines be known – for research to advance.
I am generally for embryonic stem cell research and I resent the disinformation that conservatives give us on the successes of adult stem cell research. But, I am also sensitive to the fact that using embryos, regardless of their source, introduces some moral/ethical concerns. To contend that it does not, would be superficial thinking in my view.
Re “Unless, of course, you consider suffering and slow, painful death…”.
Is this a preview of tommorrow night’s Shrub speech?
TRACY, hahahahahahaha! Bush wouldn’t be able to pronounce embryonic if you paid him money to :)
“But there is a pretty serious misconception that the embryos that are being discarded now could be used in research. That is not correct. It is necessary that the origins (genetically) of stem cell lines be known – for research to advance.”Posted by: Steven Davis | January 09, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Steven — I know a man (really well!) who is an assistant professor at Harvard, a Stowers researcher, has labs at both Harvard and Mass General Hospital, does embryonic stem cell research, is well published and his work is well known. I know the hoops he has to jump through to get the blastocysts, and to conduct his work. He does use left-over embryos from a fertility clinic. Permission was given, all the t’s crossed and i’s dotted — those people who are parents now prefer those blastocysts be used for research rather than be medical waste.
Here’s some more information for you all to consider…
Amniotic Stem Cells Could Alter Embryonic Stem Cell Research Debateby Steven ErteltLifeNews.com EditorJanuary 8, 2007
Winston Salem, NC (LifeNews.com) — Scientists have been able to successfully manipulate stem cells found in the amniotic fluid of a pregnant woman that have many properties of embryonic stem cells. The finding could alter the debate on the controversial research by giving scientists another source of cells that don’t involve the destruction of human life to obtain.
Researchers from Wake Forest University say the amniotic cells have the ability to grow into brain, muscle, fat, bone, and other tissues and could be used to treat a plethora of diseases and medical conditions.
The cells are shed into the fluid by the developing unborn child and can easily be retrieved during prenatal testing the scientists said.
Anthony Atala, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine told the Washington Post, “They grow fast, as fast as embryonic stem cells, and they show great pluripotentiality,” which means they can become various types of tissues.
They are also easier to maintain in a laboratory than embryonic stem cells and don’t pose some of the same transplant concerns that embryonic stem cells do. The embryonic cells, which can only be obtained by destroying a days-old unborn child, have caused tumors when injected into animals in experiments.
Atala told the Post the cells “remain stable for years without forming tumors.”
He also explained that the amniotic stem cells are neither adult nor embryonic but something in-between that has some of the properties of both.
Because the amniotic stem cells are a genetic match to the unborn baby then tissue grown in a lab from them will not be rejected if used to treat medical problems the child has, the Wake Forest scientists explained.
The cells could also be frozen and used in later life for medical problems uncovered in the future.
The scientists were also about to obtain the amniotic stem cells from prenatal chorioni villius biopsies, procedures used on older women to determine whether an unborn baby has problems such as Down syndrome.
Atala also said that the amniotic cells are so easy to obtain that they could produce thousands of stem cells lines in the lab and there would be enough to satisfy the stem cell needs of virtually every American.
“If you banked 100,000 specimens, you’d be able to provide cells for 99% of the U.S. population with a perfect match for genetic transplantation,” Atala says.
Despite the discovery, the head of one biotech firm that has been criticized for misstating the results of a study supposedly showing an ethical method of obtaining embryonic stem cells says those controversial cells will still be needed.”There’s not going to be one shoe that fits all,” Robert Lanza, scientific director at Advanced Cell Technology, told the Post. “We’re going to have to see which ones are most useful for which clinical conditions.”
However, pro-life advocates celebrated the findings.
“This is wonderful news,” said Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “It doesn’t require harming anyone or destroying life at any stage.”
Dr. David Prentice, a senior fellow in life sciences at the Family Research Council and a former Indiana State University science professor, says the amniotic stem cells comes without the “ethical baggage.”
However, he also said he doesn’t expect advocates of forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research to back down.
“I don’t think we’re going to see much difference in the rhetoric that both sides will be putting out,” he told Newsweek. But, he adds, “people are becoming more aware that there is another way to get to what we’re all after: helping patients, without the ethical concerns and without the bickering.”
Scientists have studied these amniotic stem cells for several years but the paper is the first to thoroughly explain their potential.
The Wake Forest scientists published information about their work in yesterday’s online edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology.
I have looked around and can find no support for my statements about the importance of stem lines being well known. I can’t recall in what context I remember that information. At any rate, I stand corrected. It is usually better to use data than vague recollections — the lesson here.
This _Nature_ derived journal article describes the history of political concerns regarding stem cell research. In this article, they too, describe using left over embryonic stem cells from IVF clinics.
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v9/n11/pdf/3301744a.pdf
Apologize again for the brain cramp. Though I try not to, I do have them sometimes.
What an admirable thing — post something on a public discussion board that turns out not to be totally correct and come back to apologize. Although the apology was totally unnecessary, I don’t see that kind of character demonstrated often enough and I admire you for it! I enjoyed reading your opinions and discussing with you, but respect your opinions even more now. Following your excellent example I need to correct a statement I made about no new scientific results being published. As pointed out by Keith (in the 3:24 post) scientists did publish in yesterday’s online edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology. I don’t have a subscription so can’t read the text published, just the intro:
———————A new source of stem cells
Nature Biotechnology pp 100 – 106
Amniotic fluid contains stem cells that can be coaxed towards becoming various cell types that might be useful in regenerative medicine, according to a report by Anthony Atala and colleagues in January’s Nature Biotechnology. Amniotic fluid-derived stem (AFS) cells may have advantages over embryonic and adult stem cells as they are readily accessible, replicate rapidly in culture and can be directed towards various differentiated cell types.
The authors isolated AFS cells from discarded samples of amniotic fluid that were originally collected by amniocentesis to test for fetal genetic diseases. AFS cells share properties of both embryonic and adult stem cells and may represent a developmental intermediate between these two types of stem cell. When cultured under the right conditions, AFS cells can be differentiated towards cell types such as fat, bone, muscle, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells. Once the methods for culturing and differentiating AFS cells have been optimized, the cells may be useful in therapies designed to regenerate damaged organs and tissues.
———————–
So there’s the truth of my incorrect post. I’m sorry too. Other scientists have been working with amniotic stem cells for the last seven years but it must be new to this team of scientists.
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, January 10, 2007Kansas Board to Move Quickly on Science StandardsThe Kansas Board of Education is moving quickly to rid the state of the embarrassment that is intelligent design. Observers expect that the board may adopt the set of standards next month that were originally proposed by the majority of the curriculum committee but bypassed in favor of intelligent design influenced standards in 2005.
Kathy Martin, one of the Christian fundamentalists on the board who pushed for the anti-science standards, apparently doesn’t watch the Daily Show.
“I really question whether we need to look at the science standards again,” says Kathy Martin.
On the other hand, Sue Gamble a leader of the new moderate majority on the board says,”We can take action next month. Local districts deserve to have high-quality education standards from which to build their local curriculums.”
And Kansans deserve to watch Leno, Letterman, Stewart and the rest without being the butt of their jokes.