Can we use our own embryonic cells to cure diseases?
925163
Seperating cells from Morula to use them for medical purpose is technically feasible. But at present seperating such cells is not feasible. Some more research is needed.
967263
Stem cell research: There are two basic types:\n \nDefinition of a stem cell   \n\nA stem cell is a "generic" cell that can make exact copies of itself indefinitely. In addition, a stem cell has the ability to produce specialized cells for various tissues in the body -- such as heart muscle, brain tissue, and liver tissue. Scientists are able to maintain stem cells forever, developing them into specialized cells as needed.\n\nThere are two basic types:\n\nEmbryonic stem cells - these are obtained from either aborted fetuses or fertilized eggs that are left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF). They are useful for medical and research purposes because they can produce cells for almost every tissue in the body. \n\nAdult stem cells - these are not as versatile for research purposes because they are specific to certain cell types, such as blood, intestines, skin, and muscle. The term "adult stem cell" may be misleading because both children and adults have them. \n\nIn August 2001, President George W. Bush approved limited federal funding for stem cell research. While stem cell research has the potential to provide major medical advances, including cures for many diseases, stem cell research is controversial.\n\nPotential uses for stem cells \n\nThere are many areas in medicine where stem cell research could have a significant impact. For example, there are a variety of diseases and injuries in which a patient's cells or tissues are destroyed and must be replaced by tissue or organ transplants. Stem cells may be able to generate brand new tissue in these cases, and even cure diseases for which currently there is no adequate therapy. Diseases that could see revolutionary advances include Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, cancer, and burns.\n\nStem cells could also be used to gain a better understanding of how genetics work in the early stages of cell development. This can help scientists understand why some cells develop abnormally and lead to medical problems such as birth defects and cancer. By understanding the genetic basis for cell development, scientists may learn how to prevent some of these diseases.\n\nFinally, stem cells may be useful in the testing and development of drugs. Because stem cells can be used to create unlimited amounts of specialized tissue, such as heart tissue, it may be possible to test how drugs react on these specialized tissues before trying the drugs on animals and human subjects. Drugs could be tested for effectiveness and side effects more rapidly.
1180676
The first steps have already been taken: human organs and stem cells have already been grown in the laboratory. New strides in genetics research such as identifying genes which cause disease are moving the scientific community ever closer to cloning a human. It would be interesting to see if a clone of a genetically mutated animal or human would exhibit the same symptoms as its duplicate. If not, what is the difference?
406585
Scientists are leagues away from using stem cells to produce organs.  Below are a few sites that will help you understand where the field is now, and how far we have yet to go:\n\nhttp://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Bioengineering/StemCells/\nhttp://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm
1122171
They have proven that the stem cells found in the cords at the time of delivery provide just as much genetic material and supply for testing and research. \n\nI think they should use those cells, and not those they collect from cultured embryos.\n\nThere is always a way to test and research that doesnt involve the use of lives without voices. Such as the unborn or animals. I think those should be sought after and explored.
22321
This is an issue that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Being sort of closet theoretical evolutionist, I wonder just how poorly equipped our species is becoming with each medical/genetic advance we discover and then apply.\n\nYour question implies the direct application of genetic engineering and manipulation to the human race -- which is an area where there is a lot more potential for than has actually been applied, thus far. I propose that our plight has been cultivated by the application of much more mundane medicine -- to be honest, mundane might not be the best choice of words here because many of these advances are truly grandiose. However, for every modern advance that has come down the way, we surely have done nothing but weaken the genetics of our species.\n\nThink about every time an antibiotic is administered? Yes, we are helping that person overcome an infection that he/she was otherwise ill equipped to rid themselves of via their own immune system. But look where that’s got us. After only a few generations of using – and grossly misusing – antibiotics, these same organisms we were able to fight off have developed resistance to. Now, not only are these bacteria back weeding out the less genetically fit folks among us, there are literally orders of magnitude more of such people susceptible to infection because they have been able to propagate these deficiencies through procreation. In this instance, saving thousands of people of lives over the years may ultimately cost millions of other theirs. You have to ask yourself: Which situation is better.\n\nWhat you have to truly realize is that is it more correct to think and apply our medical abilities on the individual. We are able to heal many diseases and disorders that, even as recent as 50 years ago, would have never even been detected, let alone treatable. But there are a litany more that, even though they aren't curable, they are able to be treated and controlled to the point that become nothing more than chronic inconveniences -- whereas in prior times, these diseases and disorders would have been lethal. Every time we have been able to sustain a person's life beyond that which the technologies of prior years could have, we are allowing those people the opportunity to procreate. Because we don't treat these disorders and genetic susceptibilities to diseases at the genetic level, the offspring of these individuals still carry these "deficiencies.” And thus pass them along for future generations. This is great for the coffers of the medical establishment – acting as ready-made population in need of their services, but it is definitely polluting our gene pool with lesser-fit alleles that would have been eliminated by the process of natural selection. If medicine wanted to truly live up to its credo of: To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them; and to never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest, maybe the medical field should take in consideration what they are doing to the species – something that Hippocrates could not have even contemplated let alone include in his oath.\n\nWhere we humans miss the boat at is thinking that we are always one step ahead of nature. What we are realizing is that’s probably a huge miscalculation. We need to take a step back and reconsider our objectives. Is medicine’s and science’s ultimate goal to help individuals within the species or to help the species?
609684
Yes you are right. Stem cell research has many useful ramifications.
227872
Stem cells are little cells that babies have to form their organs. They can be made into whatever cell you need basically. Stem cell implantation is a handy little thing that transfers embryonic cells (like the kind you had when you were first convieved) into basically whatever kind of adult cell that you need. (It could be a kidney, heart, lung etc..) Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but there are people why believe that it is inhumane. Stem cells can be taken out of the mothers umbilical cord, and also when women get their tubes tied we want to use the rest of their eggs for stem cell research. Some people say that this is murder in itself and should be banned, but they probably know nothing about it. Stem cells could save lifes of many people. (people that have diseases such as Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Diabetes, etc..)
169320
I think he was talking about technologies where they can grow human parts on rats and such using stem cells...like grow ears and human skin on host animals that can be harvested for transplants and such.  Not sure how this is too different from doing transplants with pig hearts and such....
943624
I think embryonic stem cell research is wrong.  I am a Christian, have been all my life, and I don't like being stereo-typed because of my religious 'convictions.'  Advocates argue that Christians are against embryonic stem cell research because they, we, think when we die we will have to answer for it.  NEWS FLASH!  I have accepted Christ, I am going to Heaven when I die, and here is the kicker......I won't have to answer for THEIR transgressions!  I think embryonic stem cell is wrong because life does begin at conception.  The argument that it doesn't is just a way for those who end life to feel better about themselves.  You shouldn't be able to harvest humans like potatoes for the sake of research.  Any way you look at it, it's wrong.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  I have a hard time figuring their reasoning.  What it boils down to is that they want to kill babies to cure old people.  End new life to save one that's already been lived.  For what?  To add another 10-15 years to a persons life?  Why?  Like you said, embryonic stem cell research has yielded no results, however, adult stem cell research has been the most promising so far.  I don't have an argument with these practices.  I don't even have an argument with using aborted embryos for research.  I don't believe in abortion, but the US Supreme Court says it is the right of a woman to decide.  If she decides to end her pregnancy, then I believe the embryo can be used for research.  Is this not a good enough compromise?  I have had a great grandmother die from one of those diseases stem cell research promises to cure.  I watched her suffer, held her hand as she passed, but I would never have signed anything that would have her better if I had to kill a baby.  So many people out there would love to be parents, but they can't because of medical or financial limitations.  Democrats want us to sign on for funded programs that allow babies to be killed for research to cure illnesses and diseases.  I don't see any of these people pushing for a federally funded program to help barren women conceive the children they so desparately want.  Are they really trying to help people?
102239
I say yes. It is needed and has good scientific merrit.\n\nAs for using aborted babies as stem cell sources, I have this to say. At the moment, in the US, abortion is legal. Whether you like it or not, aggree or disagree, that is the way it is. Why not use stem cells from terminated pregnancies and have them contribute to good use and the future of some other child who is living and needs help and could die? Why let them be incenerated? I think it is far more fitting that any potential use to save future lives should be. You cannot change the fact the pregnancy was terminated, so make the bets of the situation you have.
42629
Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that can, under the right conditions, turn into any other kind of cell.  They are of particular interest to scientists in that they may provide a means to replace damaged cells that the body cannot naturally replaced (in the spinal chord, for example).  Stem cells are often talked about (not inacurately) in the context of curing numerous degenerative neurological conditions (Parkinsons, Altzeimers, ALS, etc.) as well as other conditions that can be traced to the malfunction of a particular type of cell (they could be used, for example, to replace insuline-sectreteing cells in type I diabetes).\n\nAlthough I have not heard of a product like the one you mentioned, I would be inclined to say it does absolutely nothing.  Stem cells are only useful if they can be made to differentiate and become a specific type the specific type of cell that is needed, where that type of cell is needed.  Flooding the body with stem cells will not make that happen.  My best guess is that it is an attempt to profit off the wide-spread association of the term "stem cell" with curing uncurable diseases and, by extention, with improved health in general.
459713
Hopefully, Stem Cell Research may be of help
843153
yeh i'd accept it, and i'd donate my eggs to find the cures if it was legal here. Those who are against stem cell research and cause all the problems to medical scientist trying to find cures, should also give up their right to be saved when the cures are established.
711160
A stem cell is a basic cell that hasn't quite decided what to become yet.  It is like a cell on standby waiting for orders from the body.  Once the cell gets orders, it goes where it is needed and becomes whatever type of cell the body needs.\n\nWhen a fetus is developing, stem cells become whatever the infant needs based on the DNA code that the mother and father provide.  They become the bones, organs, muscles, brain, hair, etc.  Later in life, stem cells work to repair damage to the body such as bone breaks, cuts, torn ligaments, etc.  This does not mean that aborted fetuses are the primary source of stem cells; it's just one of the most visible ways of seeing how stem cells are used.\n\nMost of the advancements in stem cell research are actually being done with bone-marrow or umbilical cords.  By getting stem cells from adults or umbilical cords, no infants or fetuses need to be harmed.\n\nThe applications of the research are vast.  Scientist hope to be able to repair damaged nerves to cure blindness, deafness and crippling injuries.  There are also ways of using stem cells to stunt the growth of cancers or repair damage to organs.\n\nI hope that was elementary enough.  Stem cell research is really not as bad as everyone makes it seem.  Think about it--if we can cure breast cancer without harming a single child (born or unborn), isn't it worth considering?
889100
I doubt there are many stem cell researchers reading your question. You would need to checkout recent articles and news stories on the subject.
765492
A stem cell is essentially a cell with potential; it hasn’t yet become a specific, ‘useful’ cell. Stem cells are capable of becoming a variety of ‘useful’ cells. For example, a blood stem cell may become any type of blood cell, such as red or white. The basis of stem cell use in medicine is to manipulate their growth into tissues which people have lost through injury or disease, such as loss of certain brain cells in Parkinson’s disease, and thereby treat diseases previously considered incurable.\n\nTHERE ARE INFACT TWO TYPES OF STEM CELL undergoing medical research: Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) and Adult Stem Cells (ASCs). \n\nASCs are taken from a human adult, and usually either transplanted to another part of the body, or artificially encouraged to grow to greater numbers. ESCs are taken from human embryos which have been created artificially. Under the right conditions, these cells can then be grown in a lab, and if given the appropriate chemical signals, can be manipulated to become virtually any type of cell imaginable. In either case the aim is to replace tissues lost through disease.\n\nThose opposed to the use of ESCs strongly advocate the use of ASCs. However, many scientists believe that ASCs are ultimately less useful medically, as they cannot replace all types of cells. They exist in very small amounts and are therefore hard to find, and in extremely limited supply if wanted for transplantation on a large scale. They are also difficult to grow in culture. By contrast, ESCs are easy to isolate, grow and manipulate, and have a greater variety of uses. Thus, they are favoured by scientists as a medical tool. As ASCs come directly from the adult patient, there is essentially no controversy, as there are no life-issues at stake. It is the use of ESCs which\nis the cause of the debate, as it involves artificially creating a human embryo, harvesting the cells and then destroying the embryo. The moral objections to this revolve around a fundamental question - when does a group of cells constitute a human life? Put simply, are we playing God, and it is morally acceptable for us to do so? There has been no definitive conclusion, and the argument continues.\n\nThe variety of diseases which can potentially be treated with ESCs is huge, ranging from degenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, to diabetes, and even cancer. If successful, it could be the greatest reliever of human suffering since the introduction of antibiotics. However,\nthe moral arguments surrounding their use do not look set to be resolved any time soon. Regardless, the immense potential medical benefits cannot be ignored, and so research continues amidst the controversy.