Alex_P post=18.72004.744739 said:
Janus Vesta post=18.72004.744723 said:
I'm completely for it. It could save many lives. And the whole 'What about the babies?' thing is obsolete seeing as they don't use aborted fetuses anymore, they use blood from umbilical cords.
Adult stem cells and cord stem cells are not quite as good as real embryonic stem cells.
-- Alex
Not quite true. Several successful therapies have been tested using adult stem cells harvested from one's own body, whilst therapies from fetal stem cells have had poor to disastrous results. Scientists and politicians are fond of saying that there is no disease that can't be cured with fetal stem cells - but you could make the same statement about Ryan Seacrest's ball sweat with equal backup. The basic problems with fetal stem cell therapy are that the stem cells are genetically different from the implanted body, meaning at the least a lifetime on immunodepressants, and that the fetal stem cells are pre-programmed to make a baby, not an organ. Not having the proper environment, they clump together to form growing tumors within the implanted body. I think the most promising therapies are derived from one's own stem cells; any organs or cells grown from those will not be recognized as invaders.
Fetal stem cells can still be very useful for research. We know a lot about how blastocysts develop into babies, but very little about the individual chemicals and precursors that are required. As scientists understand more about that, they will understand more how to turn on, and turn off, development and cellular specialization. It's a slippery slope ethically, but what science isn't? And even under the best circumstances, comparatively few blastocysts actually become babies.
I say devote the lion's share of resources to adult stem cell research, but continue fetal stem research as well to develop a better understanding of human development.