First patients shown to improve with embryonic stem cells

Comments (8)
PeterMelzer wrote:

Perhaps skin-cells converted into pluripotent progenitor cells will prove safer. The method shows promise in inner ear hair cell regeneration to treat deafness.

Read more here:

Jan 23, 2012 6:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:

Mafettig, how do you know the stem cells were harvested from aborted fetuses? Nowhere in the article did it say so! Stems cells can be harvested from umbilical cords and other sources, including natural occurring miscarriages. Stem cell therapy shows great promise to reduce the misery of suffering people for a variety of very serious diseases. Stop thumping your Bible and show a little Christian compassion!

Jan 23, 2012 8:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Mafettig – Question: If you give blood at the Red Cross, does that kill you as a person? Because you lose some cells from your body?

Advanced Cell has perfected a patented method for extracting 1(!) cell from an 8-cell blastocyst – just like a 1-celled blood donation. The removed cell is regenerated in the blastocyst and the embryo continues to develop. Very similar to the current IVF process.

The 1 cell removed is allowed to grow in a dish into millions of stem cells. After that, the cells can be coaxed into specific types of cells – as in RPE cells – and then can be injected into patients.

Patients conditions improve and embryos continue to develop. Everyone wins, no?

Jan 23, 2012 9:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OneOfTheSheep wrote:


Wrong twice.

“Lanza and his colleagues arranged to obtain days-old embryos created by in vitro fertilization. The parents, who no longer wanted the embryos, donated them for research. The scientists then removed a single stem cell from one embryo, grew it in the lab to obtain millions of cells, and differentiated them into RPE cells.”

So “…a single stem cell from one embryo…”, one “… created by in vitro fertilization…”, NOT God, excess to the purpose intended, was used to help two suffering humans and give hope to countless others, both now and in the future, who suffer major malfunction in mortal bodies clearly imperfect.

Are you so judgmental as to believe their blindness “God’s judgment” and treatment as “interference” with “God’s plan”? I seem to remember something about “Thou shalt not judge”.

1. ONE embryo was a cell donor, NOT two. 2. Nothing was “killed” in the process.

Whether that embryo was preserved to offer more medical hope in the future or discarded as is normal for excess in vitro embryos we don’t know, not should we want to know. It is none of OUR business. It is none of YOUR business. That is a PRIVATE matter between the parents who donated it “to science” with the very best of intentions and the institution that received this precious gift.

You obviously do not offer the respect to others of their opinions that you expect for your own when you and others like you seek to cram it down the throat of the rest of us by threat of censure or force of law. Your behavior and expectations are uncivil and unacceptable in an intellectually free society.

Jan 24, 2012 2:27am EST  --  Report as abuse

Marla, The story clearly states embryonic stem cells were used… not umbilical cords. And what is with the bible thumping comment? There are people of all religions (and no religion) that beleive life begins at conception as a matter of SCIENTIFIC fact. She didn’t make a religious argument, and your attack on religion is out of place.

Jan 25, 2012 2:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
XLR8R wrote:

Obviously, the subject of embryonic stem cells is very contentious. What the article–surprisingly–failed to mention, is that there is another player in that space called International Stem Cell Corporation, who has a proven, patented and highly acclaimed process of deriving embryonic stem cells from a non-fertilized egg, hence without “conception.” They are called human parthenogenetic stem cells and behave the same way. They, too, are working with diseases of the eye, amongst others. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this company doesn’t get more attention! For years now, they have been performing the same research without utilizing/destroying embryos.

Jan 25, 2012 10:40am EST  --  Report as abuse

When you take only one stem cell from an embryo, is that person killed by this action?

What are the moral implications of using unfertilized eggs?

From a strictly scientific standpoint, isn’t it everybody’s business when medical research uses a human being as a means for the “cure” to know if the human being died or was thrown away as medical waste?

Jan 25, 2012 1:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OneOfTheSheep wrote:


What “person”? A “person” is a sentient being. An embryo isn’t sentient. And removing a single cell does not “kill” an embryo.

There are no moral implications of using unfertilized eggs any more than having them for breakfast. There is NO “life” in an unfertilized egg. Of course those inclined can object on behalf of the “potential”.

Human beings with no further purpose or future are used all the time for human research. Organ donors, cadavers, etc. You presume facts not in evidence when you refer to a clump of a few cells as a “human being”. Everyone does not share your personal beliefs or opinions. Would you impose them on society unilaterally?

Jan 25, 2012 3:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.