The Irish Stem Cell Foundation today called for legislation to allow human embryonic stem cell research to take place in Ireland. The Supreme Court ruled last year in R v. R (frozen embryos case) that human embryos outside the mother’s womb do not enjoy Constitutional protection. This decision, however, in no way impedes the Government from introducing legislation that protects the human embryo from destructive research or abuses in assisted human reproduction.
Responding to the Irish Stem Cell Foundation's call for legislation to allow human embryonic research, Dr. Ruth Cullen of the Pro-Life Campaign said that since its launch the Irish Stem Cell Foundation has been a staunch promoter of embryo research so it’s not at all surprising that it now seeks legislation to give it legal backing.
What is disconcerting is the manipulative way it distorts any alleged benefits of this type of research without mentioning the fact that it also involves the destruction of human life at its earliest stages of development.
The Irish Stem Cell Foundation states correctly that false claims about cures for debilitating conditions are being made by some stem cell practitioners. However, these scams occur in both embryonic and adult stem cell research and, unfortunately, are not uncommon in medical research generally. To use this, as the Irish Stem Cell Foundation does, as a cover to promote embryo research is both bizarre and intellectually dishonest.
The reality is all breakthroughs and treatments we read about in the media involve adult stem cell research, which is perfectly ethical. Embryo stem cell research on the other hand is highly controversial, unethical and has led to no valid treatments for patients.
Instead of calling for socially divisive legislation sanctioning embryo destructive research, the Irish Stem Cell Foundation should join with others in seeking to make Ireland a centre of excellence for adult stem cell research, which is extremely promising scientifically and does not lead to the destruction of human life at its fragile beginnings.
Showing posts with label stem cell research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stem cell research. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Groundbreaking Stem Cell Surgery in London
12th Apr 10
Source: Family & Life
Doctors carried out groundbreaking surgery to rebuild the windpipe of a 10-year-old British boy with his own stem cells. If the procedure succeeds, they say it could bring a revolution in regenerative medicine. The operation, which lasted almost nine hours, took place at London’s Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital last month.
Doctors injected stem cells from the boy’s bone marrow into the fibrous collagen “scaffold” of a donor trachea (windpipe). Then they implanted the organ, which had first been stripped of its own cells, into the boy.
Over the next month, doctors expect the stem cells to start transforming themselves into internal and external tracheal cells. The boy, whose identity is a secret, is reportedly doing well and breathing normally. Because they are derived from his own tissue, there is no danger of the newly grown cells triggering an immune response. In an ordinary transplant, doctors would suppress the patient’s immune system with drugs to prevent rejection of the organ.
The new procedure was a big step forward from the pioneering surgery done in Spain two years ago on 30-year-old mother of two Claudia Castillo, the first person ever to receive a transplant organ created from stem cells. She received a section of tracheal airway rebuilt from stem cells, but using a much more complex and costly process.
Prof Martin Birchall, head of translational regenerative medicine at University College London, said, “This procedure is different in a number of ways, and we believe it’s a real milestone”. The Irish Times. March 23.
Source: Family & Life
Doctors carried out groundbreaking surgery to rebuild the windpipe of a 10-year-old British boy with his own stem cells. If the procedure succeeds, they say it could bring a revolution in regenerative medicine. The operation, which lasted almost nine hours, took place at London’s Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital last month.
Doctors injected stem cells from the boy’s bone marrow into the fibrous collagen “scaffold” of a donor trachea (windpipe). Then they implanted the organ, which had first been stripped of its own cells, into the boy.
Over the next month, doctors expect the stem cells to start transforming themselves into internal and external tracheal cells. The boy, whose identity is a secret, is reportedly doing well and breathing normally. Because they are derived from his own tissue, there is no danger of the newly grown cells triggering an immune response. In an ordinary transplant, doctors would suppress the patient’s immune system with drugs to prevent rejection of the organ.
The new procedure was a big step forward from the pioneering surgery done in Spain two years ago on 30-year-old mother of two Claudia Castillo, the first person ever to receive a transplant organ created from stem cells. She received a section of tracheal airway rebuilt from stem cells, but using a much more complex and costly process.
Prof Martin Birchall, head of translational regenerative medicine at University College London, said, “This procedure is different in a number of ways, and we believe it’s a real milestone”. The Irish Times. March 23.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Scientists' Advance Further Renders Embryonic Stem Cell Research Obsolete
Scientists have made a major breakthrough using the process known as direct reprogramming that further renders embryonic stem cell research obsolete. Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have succeeded in transforming mouse skin cells directly into functional nerve cells.
With the application of just three genes, the new cells make the change without first becoming a pluripotent type of stem cell -- such as an embryonic stem cell. That is a step long thought to be required for cells to acquire new identities.
"We actively and directly induced one cell type to become a completely different cell type," said Marius Wernig, MD, assistant professor of pathology and a member of Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. "These are fully functional neurons. They can do all the principal things that neurons in the brain do."
Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith also had good things to say about the ethical progress. "Please note–this is not an adult stem cell success. It is direct programming from one kind of cell directly into another," he cautions. "Still much work to do before it is demonstrated that the technique can be used in human clinical work–some scientists express doubts–but a great step forward. Good ethics do produce good science," he writes at his blog Secondhand Smoke.
Wernig is the senior author of the research, which will be published online January 27 in Nature.
With the application of just three genes, the new cells make the change without first becoming a pluripotent type of stem cell -- such as an embryonic stem cell. That is a step long thought to be required for cells to acquire new identities.
"We actively and directly induced one cell type to become a completely different cell type," said Marius Wernig, MD, assistant professor of pathology and a member of Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. "These are fully functional neurons. They can do all the principal things that neurons in the brain do."
Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith also had good things to say about the ethical progress. "Please note–this is not an adult stem cell success. It is direct programming from one kind of cell directly into another," he cautions. "Still much work to do before it is demonstrated that the technique can be used in human clinical work–some scientists express doubts–but a great step forward. Good ethics do produce good science," he writes at his blog Secondhand Smoke.
Wernig is the senior author of the research, which will be published online January 27 in Nature.
Ireland and Stem Cell Research - Killing of embryos in human stem-cell research is wrong
Thu, Jan 21, 2010
The Irish Supreme Court recently judged that frozen human embryos are not among the “unborn” referred to in the Constitution, which binds the State to protect and defend the right to life of the unborn. The judges also called on the Oireachtas to introduce legislation to regulate assisted human reproduction and the Minister for Health, Mary Harney, has promised to introduce a Bill later this year, writes WILLIAM REVILLE
Advocates of human embryonic stem-cell research (HESCR) hope that these developments will soon give the green light to start up such research in this country. I am opposed to HESCR, primarily on ethical grounds and secondarily on practical grounds.
Biology shows that human life begins at conception when sperm and egg unite to form an embryo, thereby initiating a continuum of development that ends only in death. Science does not deal in ethics and cannot place a moral value on human life at any stage along the continuum. Many scientists believe, myself included, that human life has full moral value from the moment of conception, or at least sufficient moral value that it should not be deliberately destroyed. Many other scientists, probably a majority, believe that full moral value is only reached later along the continuum – at implantation in the womb or later. As the human embryo must be killed to obtain embryonic stem cells, I am opposed to HESCR.
Dr James Thomson, who discovered how to isolate human embryonic stem cells in 1998, has said: “If human embryonic stem-cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, then you have not thought about it enough.”
This “yuk factor” associated with killing embryos affects most people and I believe that we should not override this deep-seated intuition. In his book, The Future of Human Nature , German philosopher Jurgen Habermas says: “There is a long-established, widely shared, deep moral intuition that human embryos are not just cells like any other cells, as some argue, and we breach that moral intuition at our peril.” The deliberate killing of human embryos harms the respect for human life that we intuitively form around our coming into existence and may encourage a more general erosion of respect for life.
But people point to “surplus” human embryos left over from IVF procedures and ask why not use them for useful HESCR as they are destined to die anyway? Well, we are all destined to die, but this gives nobody the right to kill us prematurely and use our bodies for research. Also, “surplus” IVF embryos never asked to be created – they are an unfortunate by-product of IVF procedures. IVF techniques should be developed that do not generate “surplus” embryos and the embryos that already exist should be either adopted or allowed to die with dignity.
HESCR is primarily justified on the basis that it will cure many human diseases and therefore the benefit of the research greatly outweighs the harm done to embryos – the utilitarian ethic often expressed as “the end justifies the means”. Many scientists who carry out HESCR are intuitively repulsed by the idea of deliberately killing human embryos but override this feeling with the aid of the utilitarian ethic. On the other hand, principles-based ethics prioritises respect for human life and concludes that the hoped-for benefits must be sought in other ways that are ethical. Which brings me to the practical reason I oppose HESCR: we have very good alternative and ethical stem-cell approaches to curing disease – adult stem-cell research and induced pluripotent stem-cell research (IPSCR).
Adult stem cells can be prepared from umbilical-cord blood and from adult tissues. By and large, no ethical problems attend adult stem-cell research, which is forging ahead worldwide. Adult stem cells are much easier to control than embryonic stem cells and such research has produced more than 200 medical treatments. In contrast, no treatments are yet available from HESCR and it would be premature to expect any within 10 years.
Induced pluripotent stem cells, made by reprogramming ordinary adult body cells, eg skin cells, so that they change into stem cells, are the latest development in stem-cell research. Most indications are that such induced stem cells have as much potential in medicine as embryonic stem cells. By and large, IPSCR can be carried out without ethical problems.
Annual surveys of Irish public opinion carried out by Millward Brown IMS since 2005 show that the great majority of people want protection for embryonic humans enshrined in law. In the latest poll, 71 per cent of those who declared an opinion expressed a desire for legal protection for the embryo and 29 per cent saw no need for such protection ( Irish Times , May 15th, 2009).
William Reville is University College Cork’s associate professor of biochemistry and its public awareness of science officer – http://understandingscience.ucc.ie
© 2010 The Irish Times
The Irish Supreme Court recently judged that frozen human embryos are not among the “unborn” referred to in the Constitution, which binds the State to protect and defend the right to life of the unborn. The judges also called on the Oireachtas to introduce legislation to regulate assisted human reproduction and the Minister for Health, Mary Harney, has promised to introduce a Bill later this year, writes WILLIAM REVILLE
Advocates of human embryonic stem-cell research (HESCR) hope that these developments will soon give the green light to start up such research in this country. I am opposed to HESCR, primarily on ethical grounds and secondarily on practical grounds.
Biology shows that human life begins at conception when sperm and egg unite to form an embryo, thereby initiating a continuum of development that ends only in death. Science does not deal in ethics and cannot place a moral value on human life at any stage along the continuum. Many scientists believe, myself included, that human life has full moral value from the moment of conception, or at least sufficient moral value that it should not be deliberately destroyed. Many other scientists, probably a majority, believe that full moral value is only reached later along the continuum – at implantation in the womb or later. As the human embryo must be killed to obtain embryonic stem cells, I am opposed to HESCR.
Dr James Thomson, who discovered how to isolate human embryonic stem cells in 1998, has said: “If human embryonic stem-cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, then you have not thought about it enough.”
This “yuk factor” associated with killing embryos affects most people and I believe that we should not override this deep-seated intuition. In his book, The Future of Human Nature , German philosopher Jurgen Habermas says: “There is a long-established, widely shared, deep moral intuition that human embryos are not just cells like any other cells, as some argue, and we breach that moral intuition at our peril.” The deliberate killing of human embryos harms the respect for human life that we intuitively form around our coming into existence and may encourage a more general erosion of respect for life.
But people point to “surplus” human embryos left over from IVF procedures and ask why not use them for useful HESCR as they are destined to die anyway? Well, we are all destined to die, but this gives nobody the right to kill us prematurely and use our bodies for research. Also, “surplus” IVF embryos never asked to be created – they are an unfortunate by-product of IVF procedures. IVF techniques should be developed that do not generate “surplus” embryos and the embryos that already exist should be either adopted or allowed to die with dignity.
HESCR is primarily justified on the basis that it will cure many human diseases and therefore the benefit of the research greatly outweighs the harm done to embryos – the utilitarian ethic often expressed as “the end justifies the means”. Many scientists who carry out HESCR are intuitively repulsed by the idea of deliberately killing human embryos but override this feeling with the aid of the utilitarian ethic. On the other hand, principles-based ethics prioritises respect for human life and concludes that the hoped-for benefits must be sought in other ways that are ethical. Which brings me to the practical reason I oppose HESCR: we have very good alternative and ethical stem-cell approaches to curing disease – adult stem-cell research and induced pluripotent stem-cell research (IPSCR).
Adult stem cells can be prepared from umbilical-cord blood and from adult tissues. By and large, no ethical problems attend adult stem-cell research, which is forging ahead worldwide. Adult stem cells are much easier to control than embryonic stem cells and such research has produced more than 200 medical treatments. In contrast, no treatments are yet available from HESCR and it would be premature to expect any within 10 years.
Induced pluripotent stem cells, made by reprogramming ordinary adult body cells, eg skin cells, so that they change into stem cells, are the latest development in stem-cell research. Most indications are that such induced stem cells have as much potential in medicine as embryonic stem cells. By and large, IPSCR can be carried out without ethical problems.
Annual surveys of Irish public opinion carried out by Millward Brown IMS since 2005 show that the great majority of people want protection for embryonic humans enshrined in law. In the latest poll, 71 per cent of those who declared an opinion expressed a desire for legal protection for the embryo and 29 per cent saw no need for such protection ( Irish Times , May 15th, 2009).
William Reville is University College Cork’s associate professor of biochemistry and its public awareness of science officer – http://understandingscience.ucc.ie
© 2010 The Irish Times
Stem Cell Research in Ireland
R -v- R Supreme Court decision regrettable but creates an opportunity to unite ethics and science in favour of a win-win solution
Those who believe that human life should be protected at all stages will be disappointed with the Supreme Court decision in the R v. R frozen embryos case that was made on the 15th of December last. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution does not afford protection to the human embryo prior to implantation.
The Government must introduce legislation to protect human life at its earliest stages of development. The human embryo is not potential life - it is human life with potential. Each one of us passed through this early stage of life on our way to birth. The very basis of democracy is respect for the equal dignity and worth of every human being under the law. Our first and most important human right is the right to life.
The fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the human embryo does not enjoy protection under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution in no way impedes the Government from introducing legislation to protect early human life. There is precedent for such legislation in countries like Italy and Germany where protections for the human embryo were introduced despite there being no explicit Constitutional protection in those countries for human life at its fragile beginnings.
The Supreme Court decision marks the beginning not the end of the debate on how best to proceed. The totally unrepresentative composition of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction (CAHR), which voted 24 to 1 in favour of destructive embryo research, is certainly not the basis for any legislation. Before legislation is proposed, the Government must address the glaring imbalance to date in the consultative process. We need legislation to protect the human embryo not the continued outsourcing of decision making to unaccountable quangos or to some 'regulatory body'.
We must not, as a society, pass over this opportunity to unite ethics and science in a win-win solution that could make Ireland a centre of excellence for adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound and scientifically very promising.The unfolding debate is not about those in favour of research pitched in ideological battle against those opposed to scientific advances. Pro-life supporters are just as enthusiastic about the promise of finding treatments for infertility and cures for diseases, but strongly believe this can be achieved without recourse to the taking of human life.
Those who believe that human life should be protected at all stages will be disappointed with the Supreme Court decision in the R v. R frozen embryos case that was made on the 15th of December last. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution does not afford protection to the human embryo prior to implantation.
The Government must introduce legislation to protect human life at its earliest stages of development. The human embryo is not potential life - it is human life with potential. Each one of us passed through this early stage of life on our way to birth. The very basis of democracy is respect for the equal dignity and worth of every human being under the law. Our first and most important human right is the right to life.
The fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the human embryo does not enjoy protection under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution in no way impedes the Government from introducing legislation to protect early human life. There is precedent for such legislation in countries like Italy and Germany where protections for the human embryo were introduced despite there being no explicit Constitutional protection in those countries for human life at its fragile beginnings.
The Supreme Court decision marks the beginning not the end of the debate on how best to proceed. The totally unrepresentative composition of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction (CAHR), which voted 24 to 1 in favour of destructive embryo research, is certainly not the basis for any legislation. Before legislation is proposed, the Government must address the glaring imbalance to date in the consultative process. We need legislation to protect the human embryo not the continued outsourcing of decision making to unaccountable quangos or to some 'regulatory body'.
We must not, as a society, pass over this opportunity to unite ethics and science in a win-win solution that could make Ireland a centre of excellence for adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound and scientifically very promising.The unfolding debate is not about those in favour of research pitched in ideological battle against those opposed to scientific advances. Pro-life supporters are just as enthusiastic about the promise of finding treatments for infertility and cures for diseases, but strongly believe this can be achieved without recourse to the taking of human life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
