Talk:Stem cell/Archive 3

Added back the Sources section

The Sources summary looks like it got nuked in recent revisions. I added it back and reworked it to just have links to the various types and a brief summary. --RMann 23:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

History

Where would be the best place to implant a brief section in refernce to key events and dates. For example:

On June 30, 2006, Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo of the Roman Catholic Church stated in an interview that all Scientists who engage in stem cell research using human embryos should be subject to excommunication. The cardinal also mentioned that stem cell researchers should be punished in the same way as women who have Abortion and doctors who perform them. Somnabot 05:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That would probably go in the article about the stem cell controversy...CyrilleDunant 05:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of the US, US states, and countries beyond the US

The article could use more discussion of what is happening beyond the US.

Specifically Singapore. That little nation is putting billions of dollars to create stem-cell research institutions and hiring many prominent British and American scientists.

"highering" them, huh? That sounds different.--Keetoowah 01:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a resource for people around the world; many users don't speak english as their first language. Can we not mock them?--Nectarflowed 04:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think so. i forget where, but its a WP guidline --Herzog 05:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm, I think s/he is using "highering"/bettering as a pun, making the scientists better by allowing them their full potential.

Should the section on California should have its own article?

IMO the whole California section should be split off (it already has its own article), and have only a very brief mention and link in the Legal section - it's not important enough to have such a large dedicated section on the main Stem cell page. Joe D (t) 19:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think dealing with the US's federal funding restrictions is incomplete without dealing with California's response to it, [which, as the following figures explain, is providing more funding (all for embryonic stem cell research) than NIH is even spending on adult stem cell research]. The $300 million US that California's institute will be spending on embryonic stem cell research is 12 times the amount the main research organization that would normally be funding basic research like this in the US, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent in 2003 on embryonic stem cell research ($25 million US (on lines allowed by the federal ban)). California's embryonic stem cell research amount is even 1/3 more than NIH spent on adult stem cell research in 2003 ($190 million), which is a larger field and is not controversial.

Some articles I've read even claim that California's institute will have the largest endowment for embryonic stem cell research in the world. Evan Snyder, director of the program in stem cell biology at the Burnham Institute in San Diego said "this is going to be the stem cell center of the world, not just the country."

I haven't been able to find figures on how much the countries that have been most active in stem cell research are spending, which is listed in a number of articles as the United Kingdom, South Korea, Australia, Israel, and Singapore, but it seems unlikely that these countries would be spending more than the US would. (The US's purchasing power parity GDP according to the CIA world factbookis $10.99 trillion USD(2003 est.), compared with $1.666 trillion for the U.K., $857.8 billion for South Korea, $571.4 billion for Australia, 120.9 billion for Isreal, and $109.4 billion for Singapore. Although, if California can spend $300 million a year, the U.K could be spending even more. (California's GDP is given in some articles as $1.4 trillion, but I haven't seen them give sources for this.)

So, it is of course limited how much we can estimate about research endowments just by looking at GDPs, but I'm saying that California's institute is spending more than the US's federal government is spending, and it seems unlikely that, based on GDPs, other countries are spending more than the US. So if California's institute makes the US federal ban irrelevant and it is the largest in the world by a wide margin, I think this makes its presence on the page important to the article.--Nectarflowed 01:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[...]California has only just passed 71. It is going to take a while for it to take effect and in the meantime other states are discussing starting there own research centers--which will lead to competition for the best researchers... other states are responding to it--such as Texas. --Keetoowah 15:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[...]The establishment of California’s stem cell research institute changed the US research scene, as well as the global research scene. For example, US embryonic stem cell researchers will be less likely to relocate to the UK to take advantage of larger embryonic stem cell funding.

Until Texas endows funding comparable to $3 billion USD for embryonic stem cell research, any Texas state funding of embryonic stem cell research is not as noteworthy in the global scene as California’s institute.--Nectarflowed 02:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with comments about Texas; however, I never tried to make the point that Texas was more important than California.-----Keetoowah 03:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote YES

Why California? Wisconsin (particularly Madison) deserves mention before they do,

Embryonic versus Adult stem cell research

One problem on this article has been a tendency for the article to advocate either ASC or ESC research over the other. It seems we have come to an agreement to follow the stance of the Canadian Government Stem Cell Council [1], which writes:

"At this stage it is not clear whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells are going to be the best source of cells for therapeutic purposes."

I agree.-----Keetoowah 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Points to note on this topic:

• ESC research is commonly acknowledged to have been hampered in the US by the federal funding restrictions. In 2003 NIH spent $190 million USD on ASC research and $25 million on ESC research (on the lines allowed by the federal restrictions). The pace of ESC research is commonly expected to pick up once California's annual funding of $300 million is in place.--Nectarflowed 22:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)-----Keetoowah 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If the article describes the restrictions, I think a non-controversial choice of wording is to say that federal funding of ESC lines developed after Aug. 2001 is prohibited. This wording seems to be in line with the experience of research scientists who must be careful to not use equipment funded by NIH in studies that use non-federally-approved ESC lines, or risk legal action.--Nectarflowed 10:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)-----Keetoowah 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• ESC is currently 'basic research,' or 'basic science,' as opposed to research that is developed to the point that it's producing practical applications, which in this case would be treatments. --Nectarflowed 10:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)--Keetoowah 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• "although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages." (NIH)-- Oarih 01:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)-----Keetoowah 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back to basics: hESC and hASC explanations

In the introduction of the article, we introduce adult and embryonic stem cells. I think the adult stem cell section is pretty good and I'll explain why here:

Adult stem cells

First: what are adult stem cells? Answer:

"Stem cells can be found in all adult and young adult beings. Adult stem cells are undiferentiated cells that reproduce daily to provide certain specialized cells"

What does that mean?

"—for example 200 billion red blood cells are created each day in the body from hemopoietic stem cells."

Ok, so they specialise, right? Answer:

Until recently it was thought that each of these cells could produce just one particular type of cell—this is called differentiation (see Morphogenesis). However in the past few years, evidence has been gathered of stem cells that can transform into several different forms. Bone marrow stromal stem cells are known to be able to transform into liver, nerve, muscle and kidney cells. Adult stem cells may be even more versatile than this. Researchers at the New York University School of Medicine have extracted stem cells from the bone-marrow of mice which they say are pluripotent. Turning one type of stem cell into another is called transdifferentiation.

Ok, so what are the pros and cons of adult stem cells? Answer:

A major advantage of adult stem cells is that, since they can be harvested from the patient, moral issues and inmunogenic rejection are averted. There are, however, at least presently, limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also limited evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime.

Catherine Varfaillie of the university of Minnesota was able isolate the potentially ploripotent MAPC from bone marrow populations. Still there are other powerful stem cells found in BMSC populations, including mesenchymal. There was a claim of a lübeck stem cell also being ploripotent and formed organoids but that was not peer reviewed, and such claims have disapeared. Oligofactory cells are believed to be ploripotent, and are located around the nose and brain. The university of pittsburg also found the amniotic epithelial are also ploripotent which can be obtained from the placenta.

Pro - your adult stem cell would produce a liver, etc that you wouldn't reject. Con - Suggesting that adult stem cells are preferable because they do not destroy embryonic cells can be viewed as politically incorrect. Many people are appalled that anyone would choose a method that appears to make abortion seem unethical.

Embryonic stem cells

Next, embryonic stem cells:

What are embryonic stem cells? Answer:

Stem cells which derived from the inner mass cells of a blastocyst (future embryo) have pluripotent properties—

What does that mean? Answer

they are able to grow into any of the 220 cell types in the body.

Ok, so they aren't specialised, then? Or, how about telling us where and how the technology was developed, what it's applications might be, etc..? Answer: Answer:

Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a cloned embryo, created by fusing a denucleated egg cell with a patient's cell. The embryo produced is allowed to grow to the size of a few tens of cells, and stem cells are then extracted. Because they are obtained from a clone, they are genetically compatible with the patient.

So what are the issues surrounding hESC?

They are also the most controversial type of stem cells, because their utilization involves the destruction of human embryos.

Embryonic stem cells future are limied by two factors. First ESCs are likely to form a type of cancer of multiple cell types called teratoma, second the ESCs must be a close match to the patient to mitigate the potentially deadly effects of graft vs host disease.

US Presidential and Congressional Background to Stem Cell Research

Funding of ESC research that was allowed (but not yet put into practice) under the Clinton Administration’s (Aug. 23, 2000) guidelines was restricted by Bush’s funding decision. Bush’s decision was a step down in the funding situation from what the situation was under Clinton (though not put into practice before he left office). Clinton, in the publishing of his guidelines, was the first to approve of and initiate the process of federal funding of ESC research, not Bush; the process of NIH obtaining funding for ESC research under Clinton's guidelines was kept from completion only by the postponement on April 25, 2001 of the scheduled review of pending grant applications in order to provide the Bush Administration with the opportunity to review the issue. Bush changed the guidelines and the funding process began during Clinton's administration completed (under Bush's altered guidelines), with funding beginning in 2002: "NIH initiated the applications process but ultimately funding was not granted to the applications. The prior administration's process was then overtaken by events and the new policy was set."

To read a passage from the Congressional Research Service detailing this topic, go here: Talk:Stem_cell/Presidential and Congressional Background to Stem Cell Research

Keetoowah has written the following on this topic (though not in direct response to the above entry).

I think that the thing that needs work is the question of how to describe the historical funding record. I believe, Nectarflowed, that your description of the Clinton Adminstration's historical record is slightly bias toward the Clinton Adm. I understand the point that you made up there, but the fact remains that the Clinton Adm was in office for eight years and HHS, under Clinton, did not fund one ESC research project and no amount of reading around the facts can make that fact go away. Please provide the project and the date that the Clinton Adm's HHS provided funding for a ESC research project and I will gladly put that in the article. But simply arguing that he set everything up is an attempt to make the argument that the Clinton is really the breakthrough Presidential Administration for ESC research and you and I both know that you can't provide one article that makes that argument. Let's stick to facts. When did Clinton fund a project? Who did the Clinton Administrationn fund?, etc. That is the stuff of the article, not some lame argument about well the Clinton Adm got the guidelines done and they put everything in place and they just did not get a chance to fund. That is lame and you know it. You are making an statement that even the most pro-ESC research advocates don't even make.

What you trying to argue is that: Clinton was a champion for ESC research! And we all know that is not true, it is value-laden and it is non-NPV. It does not belong in the article. Is is simply wishful thinking.-----Keetoowah 04:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Re: "the Clinton Adm was in office for eight years and HHS, under Clinton, did not fund one ESC research project"

The initation of HHS’ funding process for ESC research took time to complete. The Congressional Research Service paper writes:

"In light of the presidential [1994] and legislative [1996 (the Dickey Amendment)] bans, NIH requested a legal opinion from the General Counsel of HHS on whether federal funds could be used to support research on human stem cells derived from embryos or fetal tissue."

The ESC research breakthrough occurred in 1998 (actually deriving human embryonic stem cells for the first time), "draft guidelines were published in December 1999, and final guidelines were issued in August 2000." These guidelines allowed HHS to work around the 1996 Dickey Amendment, and authorization for funding of pending grants was scheduled to occur in early 2001.

The initation of HHS’ funding process for ESC research took time to complete.

RE: “some lame argument about well the Clinton Adm got the guidelines done and they put everything in place and they just did not get a chance to fund”

The funding process for embryonic stem cell research was started under Clinton, and Bush implemented Clinton's guidelines, with the restriction that ESC lines created after Aug. 2001 were prohibited from the federal funding.

The CRS paper writes:

"After the HHS legal opinion, and despite expressions of congressional opposition, NIH indicated that it would fund research on pluripotent stem cells derived from human embryos and fetal tissue once guidelines were issued... Draft guidelines were published in the Federal Register in December 1999 and final guidelines were issued [by the Clinton Administration] in August 2000."

The guidelines set out the criteria that the National Institutes of Health would use to consider applications for federal grants to study ESCs. Applications were taken and awaited authorization.

“NIH initiated the applications process [under the Clinton Administration] but ultimately funding was not granted to the applications. The prior administration's process was then overtaken by events and the new policy was set."

What this quote refers to is that the review of (and authorization of funding for) pending ESC grant applications did not occur on April 25, 2001 as was scheduled. It was postponed by the new Bush Administration in order to provide the administration with the opportunity to review the issue. In Aug 2001, Bush announced his administration was altering the Clinton administration’s guidelines. The new guidelines maintained Rabb and Shalala’s interpretation of the Dickey Amendment, but were changed in one way: the restriction that any ESC lines created after that date were to be ‘non-federally-approved’ (for federal funding).

Less than 4 monthes (Jan - April 25) of the HHS’ lengthy funding process for ESC research occurred during the Bush Administration, though because of the administration’s postponement the process didn’t complete until later in 2001. The bulk of the HHS’ funding process occurred during the Clinton Administration. It is correct, though, that the process was completed during the Bush Administration.

Conclusion: I agree that there needs to be mention in the article that there was no ESC funding before Bush's announcement. But if we say that the funding started under Bush, we need to point out that applications began under the Clinton Administration were already pending when Bush announced that the funding process that began under Clinton would go still forward (though with the new restriction on lines). --Nectarflowed 08:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nectarflowed, I truly appreciate your attempts to discuss this issue and work with me. I agree that, if we are going to go this deep into a history of the federal approval process, then we need to be precise in describing exactly what happened. However, what you have written in your "Conclusion" to your comments is not quite accurate. Clinton put in place guidelines that would allow the federal funding of projects that worked with ESC lines that were created by private funds. Clinton still did not allow federal financing for projects on human embryos in any way. What Clinton was putting in place, in his second term in office, was the potential for the federal government to fund ESC research projects that were using ESC that were created and completely funded by private sector money.

Also, we need to point out that Clinton had eight (8) years to fund and he did not fund. That is a fact. I know that you have been arguing over and over again about the 1998 date, but the world of science did not start in 1998. The breakthrough was in 1998, but there was research going on long before that breakthrough. Scientific breakthroughs just don't work that way. We don't just wake up one morning and ESC research begins. But let's assume the 1998 date is the date to look at, which it isn't, then the Clinton Adm. took three full years to get the guidelines in place that you are trying to give him credit for. It did not need to take three years. I have been involved in the federal process in getting a federal regulation approved and getting a federal guideline approved and getting a federal manual approved and three years is a long time. It depends upon the issue. If it is a matter of National Security and we have been attacked then the federal regs, guidelines, etc. can come into existence within days, not years. Obviously, ESC research is not on the level of national security, so don't waste time writing about the comparison. I know. The point that I am making is that ESC research was not a high priority for the Clinton Adm. Now, let's look at the first term. The topic did come up, whether you acknowledge that it did or not. Clinton adamantly refused to support federal funding for research that used human embryos. This is a fact. I going to quote directly from an article entitled, "Funding of human stem cell research by the United States" By Phillip B.C. Jones. EJB Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 3 No1, Issue of April 15, 2000. “In 1994, the NIH established the Human Embryo Research Panel to develop policies for methods that researchers should use to obtain embryos, and to determine the scope of ethical embryo research. The panel consisted of 19 scientists, physicians, ethicists, lawyers, and community representatives.In November 1994, after ten months of deliberations, the Human Embryo Research Panel presented its guidelines for human embryo research. 1. embryos must be less than 14 days old, and 2.only if the studies could not be performed with animal embryos and 3. only if scientists could demonstrate a compelling reason why the studies should be performed. The panel also decided that researchers should not be limited to surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures, and that researchers could create embryos in vitro for research purposes. However, the researchers would have to show that their work with newly created embryos promised outstanding scientific and therapeutic value. The panel also warned that women should not be paid for donating their eggs for research." "During the following month, the NIH voted to adopt the guidelines. However, on the day of the vote, President Clinton issued an Executive Order that government funded scientists would not be allowed to create human embryos for research ….they could only use embryos that remained after in vitro fertilization treatments.”

So clearly, the Clinton Adm was not the champion of ESC research that you are wanting to make him to be. Also, Clinton dragged the debate about whether ESC research should be funded until when he left office. You state somewhere else that the Clinton Adm had the funding guidelines in place for four full months when he left office. That is simply not true. Here are some more facts that contradict that assertion and that is what it is a value-laden, non NPV, assertion: The NIH published “Final Guidelines for Stem Cell Research” in August 25, 2000 and “Approval Process for the Documentation of Compliance with the NIH Guidelines on the Use of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells in NIH Research Proposed for Support Under Grants and Cooperative Agreements, November 21, 2000.” Notice the date on the Federal Approval Process ("FAP") document? It was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2000--after the 2000 Bush versus Gore Presidential election!!!!! Now, don't tell me that you are naive enough to believe that the folks in Washington, DC are going to move forward on the Federal Approval Process for ESC research when the FAP was published after the election and everyone knew that we were going to have a new President, either Bush or Gore, but not Clinton. No one in Washington was going to let Clinton change the policy direction on ESC by not just a lame duck President. Now granted we did not know how the 2000 election was going to come out that point, Nov 21, but we did know that Clinton would not be in office after January 20, 2005, just two months away. We also knew that no funding decisions were being made by anyone, the House, the Senate, or the President. The members of Congress were not even in session and would not be for at least two more months. They were awaiting, along with everyone else, for the results of the 2000 Presidential election. So don't tell me that Clinton set everything up and Bush just dragged it down because Clinton did not even put everything in place until three weeks after the 2000 Presidential Election. I going to use Oarih's favorite word, disingenuous. I believe that it would apply to the assertion that Clinton was ready to go and Bush just shot it all down. That is not the way that worked. Once again, those guidelines took eight years to put in place. Clinton had eight years to fund, but he did NOT fund. What good is just talk? He did not fund. It was Bush that funded. Those are two facts. I repeat: Clinton had eight years to fund, he did not fund. Bush was in office for one year and he funded. Clinton never funded. He dragged out the debate for eight long years, until after the 2000 Presidential election, not really the Champion of ESC research I would say. I repeat here are the hard cold facts: 1. Clinton had eight years to fund. 2. Clinton did not fund. 3. Clinton talked about regulations for eight years, but never funded. 4. Bush funded. and 5. Bush was in office for one year and he funded. 6. No other President in the history of the US funded ESC research until Bush funded it.

Conclusion: I agree that there needs to be mention in the article that there was no ESC funding before Bush's announcement. But we should state that ESC funding started under Bush. We can point out that the Federal Guidelines and FAP paperwork for ESC research were developed under the Clinton Administration. But should also point out that the actual application process did not begin until the Bush Administration. Applications were coming in during Bush's first year. On the date of the announcement he followed the Clinton guidelines and FAP except for the restriction that going forward federal funding of ESC research would be restricted to the 71 lines already approved by NIH. Keep in mind that those 71 lines were approved by the Bush Adm. It was Bush's HHS and NIH that approved those lines. It was not the Clinton Adm-----Keetoowah 14:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

US 'federal funding restrictions' rather than 'ban'

The several references to a "ban" are misleading. Clinton banned all federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in 1996. In 2001, the Bush administration reversed the earlier ban with respect to existing embryonic stem cell lines.

The ban was from the congressional Dickey Amendment. The funding process for embryonic stem cell research was started under Clinton when he published his guidelines. Some critics believe his guidelines exploited a loophole in the Dickey amendment, and there was substantial congressional opposition to the method the guidelines used to get around the Dickey amendement.

Bush implemented Clinton's guidelines, with the alteration that ESC lines created after Aug. 2001 were prohibited from the federal funding.--Nectarflowed 03:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See http://www.grg.org/escells.htm ; it appears Clinton's conservatism arose from pressure from 75 members of congress. Could we get a list?

I have no idea who posted this. Was this posted by Nectarflowed or MrJones? Either way, it is not relavant. Can't anyone see how far we have strayed from the topic of Stem Cells that is the what the article is entitled. Clinton, in 1994, signed an Executive Order, not an Act of Congress, and he banned the federal funding of research involving human embryos and now we want to add the article on STEM CELLS a list of the 75 Congressman that put pressure on him? What is the relavance? Yes, he banned federal funding going to human embryo research in 1994. Ok, why isn't the focus on stem cell treatments, the science, etc. Oarih, Nectarflowed and now MrJones (???) are deciding to go back ten years and try to get a list of Congressman that put pressure on Clinton, which he gave in to, I might add. Man, are we going far back enough in history to try and prove that it really wanted Clinton's fault? May be we should take a look at his childhood and see if we can get an understanding on why he banned federal funding research on human embryos. May be we could talk to his middle school teachers and see why he never funded ESC research for three years or why he waited until after the Bush/Gore 2000 Presidential election was over to release the Federal Approval Process (FAP) in the Federal Register.----Keetoowah 16:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, from this POV editorial

Presidential candidate George W. Bush opposed it. He opposed all federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, no matter who extracted the cells.

When Bush became president, he took a less extreme position ... He was expected to ban research involving future embryos. ... he also banned research using embryos already sitting on fertility clinic shelves and headed for destruction in any event. ... Bush's policy weakened previous restrictions in a couple of small ways (for example, fewer rules about getting consent from the embryo donors).

Once again, I don't know who posted this but it sure isn't relevant. Bush was the first President to fund embryonic stem cell research, not Clinton. That is a fact and all of these speculations about what Clinton might have done is not NPV. It is simply wishful thinking that Clinton was a Champion of ESC research, which he was not. Clinton was not a Champion of ESC research (he had eight (8) years to fund a single project and he did absolutely nothing) and to pretend otherwise is value-laden, non-NPV, speculation and does not belong in the article.-----Keetoowah 16:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are these assertions true, or not? Do we know what the other weakenings are?

Mr. Jones 09:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Private funding of embryonic stem cell research

Oarih brings up above that "the members of the committee pointed out that embryonic S.C. research can be conducted with private funds." 'Basic research' that is not going to be profitable for the private sector to pursue is normally conducted through public funding, mostly from the NIH.

The Co-Ordinator of the Diocesan Respect Life group, Michele Morin, asserts that

"until marketable therapeutic uses for any medical research are less than five to seven years away, sources of substantial private funding will not be widely not available. That is why the issue of government funding for ESCR is being so intensely debated. Private funding for adult stem cell projects is much more plentiful than for embryonic projects because successes have already been proven using adult cells, and private companies are more willing to invest where the hope of future profits is more certain."

--Nectarflowed 08:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rolled back edits by anons

I have reverted edits by 67.4.184.80 and 67.4.175.17 to the last version [of the article] by Nectarflowed. This was to deal with likely POV-pushing through removal of large chunks of information, such as specific research documents.

To 67.4.184.80 and 67.4.175.17: Please consider registering and provide edit summaries. This allows us to more quickly understand why you were making these edits. --BesigedB ^(talk) 17:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Blastocysts" or "Embryos?"

The early embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are more specifically referred to as blastocysts. While a blastocyst is technically categorized as being an embryo, it seems inaccurate to refer to the early embryos used in ESC research as embryos instead of blastocysts. A human embryo at 8 weeks can almost be distinguished from an ape embryo at the same stage of development, whereas a blastocyst, being in between 30 and 150 cells, cannot be recognized as "human in form." Additionally, the public, largely having little background in biology, may sometimes mistakenly picture a fetus when they read "embryo," which would be a false connection.--Nectarflowed 13:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. Generally, I agree with your sentiments. However, there are limits to your line of reasoning. The great debate in this area of research is not, as I think we have covered on numerous occasions, between allowing stem cell research or not allowing stem cell research. I think everyone agrees with stem cell research. That false dichonomy was the red herring of the last election. The real debate is between HOW we should move forward with stem cell research, do we use embryonic stem cells ("ESC") or do we use adult stem cells ("ASC") or is there a happy medium between these two choices. Bush choose to attempt to split the baby--so to speak--by deciding to use federal funding on ALL ASC research and to use federal funding on limited ESC research (only ESC lines after April 2001). Others would divide the between the two choices in a different place. Since the debate is between ESC versus ASC then we are limited by the current debate by the terms that are used. ESC has the word "embryo" in the term ESC. The term is NOT, as conventional norm in the scientific community, referred to as Blastocyst Stem Cells ("BSC"). We need to recognize and aknowledge the accepted terminology, which limits the use the term "blastocyst."----Keetoowah 15:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My second point concerns some the editing that you did on the article. I believe that you, not necessarily intentionally, deleted many references to ASC, but did not make the same number of deletions in the reference to ESC. This is a small issue. I agree that we should use the term "blastocysts" where we can and but not when it distorts the issues.----Keetoowah 15:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope my removal of text did not seem unbalanced. The text I removed was the paragraph of Kang's quotes covering some of his views on the field of research. I think the paragraph should be left out because it seems to fall into the category of 'advocation' between ASC and ESC research, which we felt the article should avoid. The other paragraphs in the potential treatments section are descriptions of the science used. Best, --Nectarflowed 22:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Human rights' versus 'human right to life'

Is the human right to life relevant here? Any blastocysts not used in additional fertility therapy or embryonic stem cell research are frozen indefinitely or destroyed, so life is not what's at stake here; not conducting embryonic stem cell research doesn't save lives of blastocysts. I think the issue this concern refers to is that many people believe developing human beings should not be objectified in scientific research. Is there anything I'm missing? --Nectarflowed 05:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No there is nothing that you are missing. It is true that the majority of the embryos that are being destroyed are left over from in vitro fertilization, and would be detroyed nonetheless. Religion also plays a crucial role in an individuals belief of the moral status of an embryo.24.60.184.245

Maybe just the fact that witout restrictions and laws, stem cell research might just become a money making venture disregarding morals and ethics in the means of making money. Without laws, whats to stop a (desperate or immoral), scientist(or maybe in the future, anyone) from producing many stem cells in the guise of vitro fertilisation excesses so as to produce more cells for research. Is the "right to live" revelant here? Very. Why not use the excesses for other patients who are willing to accept them. Indefinately frozen eggs are the result of slack rules. Why sould infertile parents be picky of their children. Because money allows them to? Why not find other sources of stem cell research. Eg: pigs , cultured cells. Is the need to improve the lives of a selected few more important then the lives of those potential humans? Millions of cells are destroyed for the better of significantly lesser people. We should be working harder to find new means of research and better ways to control overproducing embryos or even blastocytes. The fact that we don't shows that no effort has been done to solve this messy and therefore faulty process. Don't disregard our humanity just to make money or to save us the effort, time and money. If its not right, don't make excuses for it. Solve it. Science is not put to the question here. Our souls are.Distraughtbuthopeful DEC 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Problems like excess embryo production should be solve and not used as an excuse for the termination of these "potential people" so as to advocate an imperfect and wasteful procedure. Dismissal of this subject is highly irresponsible Nectar and I am shocked by the lack of replies to such an action. It is an important point with a lot of backing. We do not condone murder. Why? This is not because of only one person's believes or religion. This is because society sees it as evil act of taking away a person's future and his right to live. Lets take a look at an embyro or blastocyte. In the right conditions, it WILL form into a human being with a future with rights. We are just ending his/her life before he attains his legal rights and value in the eyes of other people. We are just jumping the gun to avoid prosecution and in most cases we blind ourselves from its eviliness. What if you were one of those embyros? Wait I wouldn't know you and your worth cause you have already been wiped out of this world, So who cares? My Grandmother needs a new leg. She is more important than you. Wait you are not enough for me to learn about how to get a new leg. In fact i have learn little from your death. Your life was a failure, congratulations. Whos next....

Sperm, under the right conditions, will form into a human being with future rights. The only people I see standing up for the rights of sperm are part of a Monty Python skit. - Pingveno 09:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Both sides have good points and weaknesses. If your fighting for the right of the embryo's life you have a good side, but the embryo is still a living thing. Mind or not, it still has a heart beat and it still is growing just like every other living thing on the earth. It grows and lives and eats. It may not think much or have control over its muscles. But it’s still a living thing and it has some right. But also to have some rights there are some rules. Such as in the court of law, to testify you must know right from wrong. You must understand that if someone hurts another it could be for the better, or for the worst depending on the situation and whose side you’re on. Its hard to choose a side because of all the reasons you must think of to say who is right and who is wrong. You may never decide if something is right and something is wrong. In this case it’s hard for me to choose a side because of the embryo. What if they do have thoughts and we do not have the technology to find that yet, and soon in the future we do. But we have been using them for stem cell research. Does that it make it wrong now to kill another? Now that the embryo has thoughts and will should it not be right to kill? And right now, we say it has no feeling or thought. That makes it alright to kill something that does not understand? When in fact its still something that’s alive and growing and eating and it's heart beats? So what do we do? do take the sides of humans rights and let it be? Or do we use stem cell research for taking something and giving someone a second chance? - Alexis 11:40pm, March 27, 2006

No, the embryo doesn't have thought and it doesn't "eat". In essence, it is a fully parasitic form, leeeching off its mother. Even then, if you get to that point, it's too late. You're not going to get any embryonic stem cells if it's started leeching off its mother, so killing it is neither here nor there and irrelevant to this topic.

I also don't believe it's true that a blastocyst "has a heart beat," or even has any muscles to "control". Isn't the point here that the cells of a blastocyst haven't yet differentiated into muscle cells and so on? --Jere7my 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, destroying the blastocyst is not killing the embryo, because one, it is not an embryo, and two, the cells that form the embryo and in turn the human life are still alive. They can, should you wish and should we have the means to do so, be put back into an empty blastocyst and the potential human being allowed to continue its growth as if nothing had happened. Why, you could even take that one potential human being and turn it into two or three. Wolf ODonnell 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"No, the embryo doesn't have thought and it doesn't "eat". In essence, it is a fully parasitic form, leeeching off its mother." Come now. I've seen arguments for and against these sorts of things, but that's ridiculous. You're saying that these are reasons it's not alive? Reasons it's not human? You know where I'm goingwith this, surely. Babies are parasitic and cannot survive on their own. Babies do not really think. Senile people do not "eat", they are fed, they are 'parasitic' on their carers. Eventually, they do not 'think'. Severely disabled people... etc. There is no science in drawing arbitary lines in the sand. Yes, every sperm is sacred is ridiculous, but you can't justify using embryos like this purely on the ground that they are 'not human' (since clearly they are as human as any human cell), 'parasitic', 'not thinking', 'don't really look like people yet'. As for "You're not going to get any embryonic stem cells if it's started leeching off its mother, so killing it is neither here nor there and irrelevant to this topic.", that doesn't even make any sense! Anyway, sorry this is probably irrelevant to the article itself, but these sort of arguments make me cross. Think! Skittle 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You have a very good point and i tip my hat to you sir. : Alexis. March 29, 2006 11:05am

As a surgeon with the Hippocratic commitment to preservation and betterment of human life I find much of the ethical argument against the use of embryonic stem cells to be more related to erudite ideology than to the commitment made by me. A cluster of embryonic stem cells is not human life, they are undifferentiated cells which can become any part of, or the whole of a human body; they are mere building blocks without a soul. Is it essential, and ethically uncompromising, to rule that a cluster of undifferentiated cells be absolutely allowed to become a new human to add to an already overpopulated planet? Or is it more proper and more ethical to utilise this cluster of undifferentiated cells to reduce the otherwise suffering of an existing human possesing a soul ? Some might argue that a cluster of undifferentiated cells, which come from a human, must then necessarily contain ,at least, the elements of soul. I argue that, because the cells can be caused to differentiate into a liver or a kidney, the prior argument is nonsense unless one can accept that a liver or kidney posses a soul. I think my position is clear. QRS

In your mind, when does a cluster, group, or whatever, of cells, acquire a "soul", then? Ronabop 08:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Response: An orthodox view is that the soul leaves the body on death, and that death is defined as cessation of brain activity. It is reasonable then to suggest that a soul enters the body at the beginning of brain activity. QRSQRS 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you had to define murder would you include the death of a cell that maybe if lucky will grow up to be a human beign? Researchers have come up with a way to remove the stem cell with out harming it. So why are you saying that its murder when its really not. Some of the people who oppose this research are those who are healthy and do not have to worry about the dificulties of having health problems. Because if this researched is stopped you will go on living with you're lives as if nothing ever happened. But what about the other people "leave them in their misery" becuase some people did not want to harm something that would maybe have a life if an adult decided too. It is a topic that is very debated all around the country but we have to consider those who really need this. They can be you're parents, sons, daughters, teachers, or even you now or in the future. All you have to remember is that its just a cell and not a living thing, it will not talk to you, it will not cry, and it will not have any emotional feelings; so why the attachment.I am not saying that my opinion is the right idea of what should be done, but atleast should be considered. --{Patty bBe}--

Definition

The definitions given in the article are contradictory. The definition in the first sentence excludes unipotent ones, but then in the first section they are listed as one type of stem cell. I suggest changing the first sentence to something like "undifferentiated cells that retain the ability to differentiate into some or all other cell types" AxelBoldt 03:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This problem has still not been resolved. The definition is very problematic. I suggest that we revise it sometime soon. AxelBoldt's definition is good. Why don't we adopt it? I also suggest that we remove all speculative references to predicted treatments from the definition. We should keep that separate from the definition of a stem cell. --CJ 02:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The current version is how I define a stem cell. I think there shouldn't be any problems with it. /Habj 12:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I think there's still problems with the introductory definition. It says:

They can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the organism is alive.

Then later on the article defines a pluripotent stem cell as thus:

Pluripotent stem cells cannot grow into a whole organism, but they are able to differentiate into cells derived from any of the three germ layers.

Surely these two definitions cannot be mutually true! Or am i barking up the wrong tree here? --CJ 3 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

I changed the introductory definition, in accordance with Alexboldt's suggestion, this ensures that the introductory definition accords with the definition of a pluripotent SC. Previously, these two definitions contradicted each other.--Nicholas 08:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed information regarding "do blastocysts have awareness and feelings"

The criteria used for "awareness" is faulty. Brain activity on its own does not necessarily indicate awareness. Additionally, the information regarding brain death does not refer to humans that are not yet born, including blastocysts, so it doesn't apply here. --Holdek 01:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) - But a total lack of brain activity that's still remain for relatively long period can indicate a lack of human life as we know it; Another type of life? that's a very personal faith. Not based on evidence. Arbitrary definitions and rules for the application of the information about the nervious system functions that are not supported by evidence should not add confusion to what the observation and medical evidence suggest.

male/female chimeras; absence of nervous system

I made the following (bolded) changes (while not logged in) which were reverted by Peterholmes. Is there a problem with these two additions or with their phrasing?

A blastocyst at the stage at which embryonic stem cells would be extracted is still young enough to be able to divide into two embryos, making identical twins, or in rare cases, merge with another blastocyst, even one of the opposite sex[1], to create a chimera, an individual comprised of populations of cells with two different sets of DNA. From the biological point of view, these points mean the blastocyst is not yet an individual. Blastocysts is far in development from possessing a nervous system, and thus biologically speaking do not have feelings.

In my experience, many people think the blastocyst subjects of embryonic stem cell research have human feelings, which biologically speaking is a false connection. --Nectarflowed 00:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I may have been hasty in the revert, there are a few grammar chnages needed in the second sentence.

Blastocysts are a very early developmental stage and do not possess a nervous system, and thus biologically speaking do not have feelings. --nixie 00:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So its ok to destroy them? Then let me drug people and then kill them :).

- There is a "Non sequitur" in the statement above. See the article on Non sequitur .

Reorganization?

Perhaps this article should be split up perhaps into articles like

• Stem Cells (scientific description)
• Embryonic Stem Cells (ethical/political controversy).

Olbrich 17:33, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Shortening the article

I think that the potential treatments section should be moved to its own page, we could call it stem cell research (currently redirects to stem cell) or something similar. This would achieve a few things, it'd decrease the page to less that 30 kb, it would allow the addition of more facts to the current article, and we could turn the research page into something sligtly more like current events in SciTech page, giving decent references and links to research. Anyone agree or violently disagree?--nixie 14:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The current treatments section currently only has a 1 and 1/2 entries. I think covering what kind of research is being done and what potential treatments may result is one of the more important areas of the article. If we do split the page (I'm not sure it needs it) IMO we should only summarize the ethical & political sections here, and move the actual sections to their own page, such as Stem cells (ethics and policy). This seems it may be appropriate because the topic 'stem cells' is primarily a scientific endeavor, and only secondarily an ethical & political discussion, although this may be what it's famous for. And again, I do think leaving a summary of those issues on this page would be valuable.--Nectarflowed 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the political and ethical debates would be better on another page. However, since the future treatments are (so far) speculation I do feel that they would also be better in a seperate article, and have the main article just cover the facts- maintaining encyclopedic standards--nixie 06:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Introductory definition

I think that shortening the article is a good idea. I would go even further. I think that the introductory definition is problematic. It gives the impression that stem cell technologies are going to have a very linear innovation trajectory. In other words, it implies that the future of research is already determined. This is obviously not the case. The article, quite rightly, implies that a great deal of scientific uncertainty still exists. However, in the introductory definition we are given no sense of this. The future of such technologies is by no means certain. Anything could potentially happen with stem cell research. As it currently stands the introductory definition, rather crudely, reduces the scope of potential outcomes.

The Columbia Encyclopaedia (6th Edition: 2001) restricts itself to defining stem cells as unspecialized human or animal cells that can produce mature specialized body cells and at the same time replicate themselves. This definition is not perfect. But - at least - it doesn’t present a deterministic view of stem cell research.

It might be argued that the definition escapes such problems by saying Medical researchers believe. However the audacity of the belief, that stem cells have the potential to change the face of human disease, does require a considerable leap of faith given the fact that research is still at a developmental stage.

Many questions still remain surrounding stem cell research. Who will derive the most benefit from such technologies? Those who need it the most? Or rich people in the Western World? In this context changing the face of human disease is slightly over the top. - CJ

Re: "the audacity of the belief, that "stem cells have the potential to change the face of human disease", does require a considerable leap of faith given the fact that research is still at a developmental stage."

The wording is derived from a quote from Robert Klein, chair of the supervising committee of the California_Institute_for_Regenerative_Medicine, saying that the research being done today is a "first step in changing the face of human suffering forever." I don't think it's controversial that stem cell research has the potential to be the central factor in eventually curing a number of diseases, and even eventually contributing to changing the relationship itself that humans have with disease in general.

Re:"As it currently stands the introductory definition, rather crudely, reduces the scope of potential outcomes."

IMHO, "Medical researchers believe stem cells have the potential to change the face of human disease by..." is pretty broad in scope and open-ended.--Nectarflowed 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear CJ: I think that you are confused. You are mixing science with politics. See the whole stem cell thing is shrouded with politics. In the last election the progressives and the liberals were trying desparately to paint President Bush as a backward burger-eating moron and everyone who even thought about voting for him as backward burger-eating morons. So in that light they constantly stated that Bush was "against stem cell" research--which of course was NOT true. What Bush was against was ESC research, but in politics sutle differences do NOT win elections so the liberals went overboard and stated that he was against ALL SC research. But they could NOT leave the propaganda there, they had to really ram home their misrepresentation and make the case that Bush was trying to stop Americans from finding cures for cancer and AIDS and all types of diseases so they make up the myth that stem cell research is going to cure ALL diseases. This way, you see, they could make the argument that Bush was not only stopping ALL SC research, but he was stopping the cure for ALL diseases--make the propaganda even more rich and bombastic. So the myth was created that SC research can and will someday cure everything if the damn Republicans and Bush was just get out of the way and let the Democrats do it--which of course was all just election year hot air, which we Americans love so much because it quite entertaining but is 99% of the time just a whole bunch of hot air. Remember when John Edwards stood up and stated that if John Kerry is elected then Christopher Reeve and everyone like him will get out of wheelchairs and walk!!! Just in case you believe that I am making the whole thing up. I actually had that quote in the Wikipedia article at one time, but I was told that to dare to quote Democrats directly was unfair and partisan and so it was censored from the article. And that is why this article refers so often to SC research being the POTENTIAL CURE FOR ALL HUMAN CONDITIONS!!! So my suggestion is just simply realize that this article is an outgrowth of science and politics and you can get a better understanding on why all of the polyannaish SC-research-will-cure-all talk. You just have to accept that premise--that SC research will cure all--to live with this Wikipedia page. That premise is like Mark 3:16, it is very hard to be a Christian without it. That premise is the holy grail of the article and you just have to accept that religous premise or all of your work will be edited out over and over again. Don't question that premise because remember Kerry and Edwards too are going to run again and the Democrats want to save that lame argument for the next Presidential election.-----Keetoowah 17:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant John 3:16, not Mark: "And Simon he surnamed Peter." Direct quotes can indeed be dangerous... 169.233.68.88 23:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You are right, Santa Cruz, Calif. At least you read my rant.-----Keetoowah 13:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Defining a stem cell

Do you think that Wikipedia should represent the voice of medical research? Or, contrarily, do you think that Wikipedia should strive to be as neutral and as independent a voice as possible? (Why is there no reference for R. Klein?)

I think that there are grounds for adding an extra sentence toward the end of the introductory definition. This sentence could represent the opinions of medical researchers, but at the same time acknowledge the scientific uncertainty that exists.

RE: Stem cells can "theoretically divide without limit" This sentence has complicated the introductory definition since it does not ring true for pluripotent stem cells. I will remove it. --Nicholas 11:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Pluripotent (embryonic) stem cells are commonly stated to have the ability to theoretically divide without limit. Multipotent stem cells are taken from adult organisms and have shortened telomeres, which means less growth potential, though telomeres can be extended. --Nectarflowed ^T 20:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could split the opening paragraph into two separate sentences? At the moment it's just one long sentence and a little difficult to read. Split that into two sentences and keep the rest of the introduction as it is? I'd be happy with that.--Nicholas 19:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the introductory definition has been complicated by the recent addition of the phrase "cell therapy" since not all cell therapies involve stem cells. Plus the sentence has become pretty long.--Nicholas 15:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out, CJ.--Nectarflowed ^T 08:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is unipotent really the same as multipotent?

The word "unipotent" seems very strange to me in the context of stem cells. Looking at the word itself, it looks like it means a cell that can develop into only one kind of cell - like monocytes that differentiate inte macrophages (slight simplification, but still). /Habj 13:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Magical" Seoul treatment cannot be found on PubMed

"Researchers in South Korea announced in November 2004 that they had successfully used multipotent cord blood (adult) stem cell treatments to enable a paralyzed woman to walk with the aid of a walker."

A thorough search of the medical literature both for general keywords (stem cells, therapy, spinal cord) and the authors' names gives no results. Check for yourself on PubMed.org. Since the treatment is from November 2004, it could be out by now. If it is so promising and novel, why is it not published officially?

It IS in PubMed: [2]-- --Keetoowah 01:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In short, the paragraph should be tagged with a warning, if no more reliable publication can be found by the end of 2005.

Wrong. This paragraph should not be tagged with a warning. I have added links to the articles that described the treatment. [3] [4] It was not a study anyway. It was a treatment for ONE woman. I have added a link to the Korea Times article that shows a picture of the woman. The link to the Korea Times article is on the Stem Cell page, but it was moved to the bottom in the reference section during an edit war. A truce has been called in that edit war and now maybe the link can be added back in the article without someone removing it. You have not signed your comments. But no warning is required.-----Keetoowah 12:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, I'm glad to see you providing a reference, but I think your threat of a warning for not signing his comment may be "biting the newcomers" (see Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers). And I agree: I don't know why someone would object to the Korea Times link being in the relevant section. --Nectarflowed 04:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Nectarflowed: I don't know how you know that whoever comment anonymously is a newcomer. The comment does not indicate that it was written by a newcomer. How do you know it was written by a newcomer? However, be that as it may, all I stated was: "You have not signed your comments." I was not rude or offensive. Please explain in detail why what i stated is so horrible. I believe that you are way, way too sensitive or are just looking for a reason to critize me. Either way it was an unwarranted, unwelcome and unhelpful admonishment.-----Keetoowah 16:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although it's definatley a 'good news' stem cell story the fact that this treatment was not reported in a peer reviewed journal, or any scientific journal for that matter, leads me to believe that this section should bear some kind of unpublished research warning, or be deleted from the article entirely. If the publication that is promised emerges then its fine--nixie 05:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do we know that there just has not been time to get the research written up, submitted to a journal, and they are currently waiting for publication? Since the situation has been written about in the Korea Times, London Telegraph, Agency French Press, and United Press International, why not leave in the story and give the researchers more time to get the article out there. I think that we should err on the side of giving Wikipedia readers more information instead of less. Why is the only options: 1. research warning or 2. delete?? I would just like to understand why those are the only options. Leaving in the citation from four legitimate sources would seem to me to be the most prudent route.-----Keetoowah 16:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I talked to the two researchers involved in Korea and they indicated that they have submitted an article concerning the work to the journal: "Cell Therapy".-----Keetoowah 15:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reference: Kang KS, Kim SW, Oh YH, Yu JW, Kim KY, Park HK, Song CH, Han H. A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study. Cytotherapy 2005;7(4):368-73. --Herb West 00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation, Herb West. Also, PubMed has the Cytotherapy article in its database. --- --Keetoowah 01:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

On another follow up note, the women and the researchers are in the news again. Please see: 2nd Stem Cell Operation Planned for Patient Also, I noticed that whoever made the original critical comments about the Korean situation has removed their identification tags. I guess that the warning should be people jumping to conclusions--just because something cannot be found on PubMed. PubMed does not have every single article in the whole world, that was fallacious argument. Just another example of overzealous ESC supporter attempting minimize the benefits of ASC.-----Keetoowah 20:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Further follow up, someone updated the article with research from California. In this research, it is clear that the therapy works in mice--Keetoowah 23:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC):

According to the October 7, 2005 issue of The Week, University of California researchers injected stem cells from aborted human fetuses into paralyzed mice, which resulted in the mice regaining the ability to move and walk four months later. The researchers discovered upon dissecting the mice that the stem cells regenerated not only the neurons, but also the cells of the myelin sheath, a layer of cells with which nerve fibers communicate with the brain (damage to which is often the cause of neurological injury in humans). [5]

That seems very likely, seeing as I posted some info on some other research in California that suggested that human ES cells injected into the mouse brain take on the characteristics of mouse neurons even down to their size. Wolf ODonnell 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ICR poll

There seem to be some strange things around the International Communications Research poll. Firstly, the poll was commissioned by the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It seems likely the Secretariat for Pro-Life activities had pre-conceived ideas they were interested in proving, as suggested by a statement by the Deputy Director, Richard M. Doerflinger: "It is always wrong for government to promote the destruction of innocent human life." He seems pretty committed to a point of view.

Secondly, the press release of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the poll used "a weighted sample of 1010 American adults." They don't provide more information on how they decided to weight it. If someone can provide insight, please do.

Thirdly, no notable news sources covered it. Even Fox News,[6] which tends to have a focus on conservative points of view, skipped it. A google news search[7] reveals Yahoo News, PRnewswire, and USnewswire posting the press release from the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The press release posted on these 3 news wires was in turn mirrored by a couple of non-notable news sites. Press releases are often made to look like news, but are not necessarily reviewed in any detail by the posting news wire. There was also a press release issued by The National Right to Life Committee, USA that covers the poll. Lastly, there are also a couple of non-notable political sites actually writing articles about it, such as Lifenews.com, Lifesite.com, and Catholicworldnews.com. If this poll isn't good enough for any notable news sources, not even biased ones supporting the issue, it doesn't appear to be good enough for an encylopedia. Compare that the other polls listed have been reviewed and covered by notable news sources.

The Pew Research Center is a non-partisan group, and there's no reason to think there's anything wrong with their data. --Nectarflowed ^T 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In all due respect, Nectarflowed, people can make poll say whatever they want them to say. They can slant the questions. They can skew the sample. They push toward the answer they want with tone of their voice. There is absolutely no evidence that you have provided that backs up the premise that Catholic Bishops poll did any of those things. By the same token, there is no absolutely no evidence that the Pew poll did any of those things. As far as I'm concerned the poll should stay in the article because I haven't seen any evidence that it was biased. All you provided is a list different groups that covered it. That means absolutely nothing. So what??? As a scientist, you should know that just because certain groups covered it in the news does not provide any type of claim that the underlining results are flawed. You did not provide any evidence or support for the argument that the results of the poll is flawed. Please provide a scientific basis for your questioning of the poll, not a unscientific listing of the groups that picked up on it. The strange things that I see in this discussion is a complete and total lack of focus on the actual outlining methodology of the poll by you. Also the other strange thing that I see is your complete and total belief in the Pew poll and your lack of critical analysis of its methods and biases. All I can tell with absolute certainity is that you don't like the results of the poll, but you can't seem to find a flaw in the methods.-----Keetoowah 01:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree the poll should be included. My listing of the sites that did cover it was just a break-down of the results of a google news search; I was showing that no notable news source covered it. That in itself may not necessarily mean anything, but it would be better for all of us to get our hands on the poll results themselves, as all that appears to be available online is the press release from the funding group, which is a partisan group. So, yes, I would love to be able to verify the poll's methods. Keetoowah, do you want to look into if it's possible to get a copy of the poll results themselves? I'd imagine they may provide such things to interested media organizations. --Nectarflowed ^T 06:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can work on that. I don't see how the Catholic Bishops are trying to hide anything. Also, I noticed that your intellectual curiosity does not want to verify the results of the Pew poll. Why is that? I can only assume it is because the Pew poll results agreed with your pre-conceived notions of what the results should look like or what you wanted them to look like. That my friend is researcher bias and as an esteemed member of the scientific community you should not be swayed by your own obvious bias and prejudice. Therefore, as a researcher that is truly concerned about the results of this particular poll then you should take a critical look at the methodology of the Pew poll. Can you track down the Pew poll? Also, can you verify the results of the Pew poll? Because unlike you I don't agree that the, as you say, there is NO reason to question the Pew poll results. Why not?? Have you verified, from a objective, scientific basis the results of the Pew poll? Of course not. You just like the results and that is your subjective, non-scientific basis for your conclusion on the Pew poll. You did not provide one piece of objective, scientific evidence to back up your complete and total support of the Pew poll. You just stated out and out, "They (Pew) said and I believe it!!!!" That's not scientific. Or, as you like to say, that sounds "strange" and "unusual" to me. I see some strange things around your conclusions. No scientific basis for your conclusion that Pew is correct. No verification by you that Pew did the poll in an scientific way--just your blind faith that the poll was correct. That is the "strangeness" that I see.-----Keetoowah 01:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right; ideally we would have access to all three polls. Still, the three reasons I gave that appear to cast doubt on the Bishops' poll are that (1) they made statements about what they were trying to prove with the poll, (2) they used a weighted sample without explaining how they chose to weight it (were their participants all from catholic churches?) (3) no notable news source verified it: for all we know it doesn't exist. These arguments cannot be made against the Pew poll. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 10:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I looked at the article, and sent it to friends who have phD's in molecular biology and they all doubted the article's usefullness. That's why I deleted reference to it. The part about adult stem cells are better than embryonic stem cells because of cancer is dubious since adult stem cells can also became cancer.

What is the repuatation of the Korea Times? How confident can we trust it?

When you look at other stories about paralysis and stem cells, nobody ever mentions it. And, in fact, the stories I do find about paralysis, they mention that it was only a marginal benefit and that scientists think that the imporvement was due to muscoal cells and not adult stem cells. There's still debate as to if those mucosal cells were adult stem cells or not. And, there's still sceptisim if the adult stems used by the Korean scientists could have transformed into neurons. Too many questions for the artilce to get posted at this moment.

Dear 209.178.164.254: To make the wholesale changes that you attempted to make is going to require more detailed analysis than what you have provided. You have made a series of conclusory statements to back up your position but you have not provided fact and evidence. In other words, your analysis is weak. What stories did you find???? List them, link to them, just don't expect me to believe the information that you read because you won't even mention who you are and what you basis of your thinking is based upon. What is your reputation?? Who are your friends with PhDs? What is their reputation??? All your comments and information is third, fourth and fifth hand and it comes from someone who will not say who they are. Reversed.------Keetoowah 12:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing

Source number 21, directly preceded by the words "embryonic stem cell research has never produced a successful treatment", goes to this article,

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15371718%255E7583,00.html

which, besides not mentioning whether or not embryonic stem cells have ever been used in humans, seems to me to be a dubious source (it makes the argument that the next logical step for scientists with an "insatiable appetiate" for "tinkering with human life" is "brave new world baby farms."). As far as I know, embryonic stem cells have never been tried in human beings, and so of course have never produced a succesful treatment (only saying that they have never been succesful, and not never attempted, would be POV). Does anyone have a source? - Alkafett--

Dear Alkafett: It is a FACT that esc research has never, ever produced a treatment and that fact will STAY in the article. The burden is on YOU to produce a source that shows that ESC HAS produced a treatment. Go ahead, waste your time, try to find a source that backs up your argument because there is NOT one source that will support your claim that ESC has produced a treatment. It is simply a case of wishfull thinking on your part.-----Keetoowah 21:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Every mainstream news source that covers stem cells that I've read states that the great majority of scientific researchers believe embryonic research has greater potential. We don't have polls of researchers, which would be better, but this is fine. Of course embryonic stem cell research hasn't produced a treatment. It's very new and in the basic research stages. This is a straw-man argument.--Nectarflowed ^T 09:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact and it will stay in the article. The moment that a treatment exists we will change it and only then.-----Keetoowah 13:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's all well and good, and I don't pretend to know, but have stem cells even ever been tried in a human being? If not, I think that deserves mention. A car can't a perfect safety record if it's never been driven. Alkafett

Controversial

I think the comment "an early stage of fertilization in which the egg is NOT yet an embryo" under the Blastocyst stem cells section is completely unnecessary. I think this parenthetical comment is only used to relay the editor's own point of view. It is mentioned throughout this article that blastocysts are an early stage of an embryo's development. There are numerous links to the blastocyst article throughout this one and I think this comment serves no educational purpose whatsoever.

I agree with the above comments. The term ‘blastocyst’ appears to be based on a false distinction that has been drawn between ‘the embryo proper’ and the embryo at an earlier stage of development, sometimes the term ‘pre-embryo’ is used in this context. However the precise stage at which an embryo can be classified as a ‘blastocyst’ or a 'pre-embryo' seems to involve a somewhat subjective judgement. The article currently says:

A blastocyst is a stage of development of an embryo when it is around five days old and made up of about 100 cells.

Because of their highly subjective nature, terms such as bastocyst and pre-embryo are problematic and may be criticised for trying to dehumanize the human embryo.--CJ 28 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Scientists have definitions for blastocysts etc. that work accurately. See mammalian embryogenesis, for more info. As for why is the distinction between blastocyst and embryo significant, a late stage embryo is already almost distinguishable as human from a late stage primate embryo when viewed magnified, but a blastocyst doesn't even have differientiated cells yet. They're very different. --Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)

That article doesn't make things any better. In fact, it makes things worse. The mammalian embryogenesis article nicely illustrates the highly subjective nature of the term 'blastocyst'. There is nothing "scientific" about this term. It is literally a 'social construct', which has been used to justify a very controversial set of experiments. The argument that I am making here is nicely illustrated in Michael Mulkay's 1997 book 'The Embryo Research Debate'. Check it out. Mulkay argues that terms such as 'pre-embryo' and 'blastocyst' are effectively weapons used by the pro-research lobby to try and affect the sort of change that would accommodate their controversial interests.--CJ 3 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

Surely it would be wrong to classify an embryo as being distinct from a bastocyst because the latter cannot be recognised as being human in form. No matter its exact appearance a human embryo is a human embryo, even in its early stages of development. By overemphasising this term (bastocyst) the article positively reverberates with the pro-research lobby and its attempt at trying to dehumanize the human embryo--CJ 3 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Re:"Surely it would be wrong to classify an embryo as being distinct from a bastocyst because the latter cannot be recognised as being human in form."

Science gives different phenomenon different terms. This is so that meaningful and accurate conversations can take place. Please explain how 'blastocyst' is less accurate than 'embryo.' A blastocyst consists of 50-150 cells, and lasts until implantation in the uterus. At this point the outer cells being to develop into the placenta, and the inner cells begin to differentiate from each other. It's important to give good definitions, because otherwise people speak falsely, such as US congressman Tom Delay saying ESCr "dismembers" embryos. The problem with this is that blastocysts do not have members (limbs), nor any differentiated cells (beyond the differentation between inner cell and outer cell).--Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the term 'bastocyst' it has emerged only in the past couple of decades. It has emerged at roughly the same time as embryo research has emerged. But the problem for the pro-research lobby is that people don't like embryo research. Many people deem embryo research unethical. So, what the pro-research lobby did was create this category, variously called a 'blastocyst' or a 'pre-embryo', using a highly subjective classificatory schema (50-150 cells is very vague and somewhat open to interpretation) in the hope that such terms would pacify the ethical concerns. The term 'bastocyst' is therefore highly subjective and controversial. But the article makes absolutely no attempt at capturing the controversy or the historicity of the term. I would recommend that you read Michael Mulkay’s book if you are still not convinced by this argument. --CJ 3 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Mulkay's theory sounds effective for his perspective, but it's still a fringe theory. It seems unlikely that the term blastocyst has less scientific usefulness than the terms morula and zygote. 50-150 cells is very different from 10 cells, and very different from 1000, 10,000, and 100,000 cells. Embryos are comparatively huge at the point when they start to be referred to as fetuses.

On a personal note, as for whether or not the term dehumanizes embryos, I like to look first at the scientific reality, and then build my conceptions, such as what is a human, based on that.--Nectarflowed ^T 4 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)

The ‘blastocyst’ label is shot through with evaluative content. It is a social construct which has been used to justify a highly controversial set of experiments. "We are not conducting research on human embryos; that would be unethical; we are actually conducting research on ‘the blastocyst’, which is something different". Astonishingly, however, there is much room for manoeuvre in the classification of a blastocyst. The actual differences between a blastocyst and a human embryo seem to involve a subjective and unscientific decision based on the number of cells that the embryo contains.

At what stage does a human embryo change from being a "blastocyst" to becoming an "embryo proper"? Is it with 151 cells? 160 cells? Maybe 170? Can you give me a precise figure?--CJ 4 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)

50-150 cells is very different from 10 cells (morula), and very different from 1000, 10,000, and 100,000 cells. These are numerical definitions. Please explain how 100 cells is only subjectively different from 100,000 cells. Note that a late-stage embryo has organs and a nervous system, while blastocysts do not. Please explain how that is only a subjective difference.--Nectarflowed ^T 8 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

The term 'blastocyst' remains subjective (not to mention controversial) because nobody can give a scientific definition of what constitutes such a term. A blastocyst is variously described in this article as being between 50-150 cells (which is a wide range in cell numbers); in the mammalian embryogenesis article it is described as being 40-150 cells; and as you (Nectarflowed) quite rightly point out, the Encyclopaedia Colombia gives completely different figures, with an equally big range in the cell numbers. The term ‘blastocyst’ is used as a political smokescreen to justify a controversial set of experiments on the human embryo. It is used to dehumanise the human embryo. In other words it is used to designate the object of research as something other than a human embryo. I see that this issue has cropped up in your discussions with Keetoowah and others, so it looks as though you are in the minority on this topic. I will gladly eat humble pie if you can give me a precise definition of the blastocyst, including a definitive explanation of the number of cells required for the constitution of a blastocyst. Even then, however, the article will still require a little editing to remove some of the current imbalance. --Nicholas 19:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Re:"I see that this issue has cropped up in your discussions with Keetoowah and others, so it looks as though you are in the minority on this topic."

No one else is asserting 'blastocyst' isn't a scientific term. Even if they were, this article should be referencing (majority) professional opinion, not the opinion of non-biologists.

1. The Columbia Encyclopaedia gave numbers inconsistent with the scientific literature (they got their numbers wrong, as is sometimes done). In lay publications, the most common figure is 50-150 cells, though this is sometimes simplified as just 100 cells. Here's a more precise count, from the US Department of Health & Human Services: blastocysts have 30 to 150 cells.
2. At the end of the embryo stage (8 weeks), the major structures have formed. Conversely, blastocysts have no cell differentiation beyond the division of inner cells and outer cells (which will become the placenta). This is a big distinction that justifies scientific terminology. Do you argue otherwise?
3. Re: "it is used to designate the object of research as something other than a human embryo": No. A blastocyst is defined as (a stage of) a human embryo.
4. The above statements can be verified by professional biologists.--Nectarflowed ^T 04:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

30-150. Is a very wide range of figures. There's a 5x's difference between those two figures. Not very precise! At what stage does a blastocyst become an 'embryo proper'? Is that with 151 cells? 152 cells? maybe 153? or is the figure subjective?

Regarding the dehumanisation of the human embryo, the term blastocyst is a smokescreen and it has been discussed with other wikipedians on those terms. Keetoowah, for instance, suggested that the term can 'cloud the issue'. In addition he very correctly argued that eSCR is actually called eSCR - not bSCR. The term 'pre-embryo' is sometimes used instead of 'blastocyst' - both terms are actually interchangeable. Additionally both terms have been criticised for portraying the human embryo as something other than the object of research. I have given you references for this (Mulkay 1997), and i can give you many more, if you like. Sadly, the internet is some way behind the ethical/sociological consensus on this matter and if you want to check out these references you will have to check out a library.--Nicholas 08:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

1. 30 cells is around the time when the morula begins to exhibit the features that characterize a blastocyst. 150 cells is around the time when the blastocyst begins to exhibit the features that characterize a post-blastocyst-stage embryo. These are numbers that mark the beginning and ending of the stage.
2. A google search for 'blastocyst' yields 63,000 hits, whereas a search fro "pre-embryo" yields 3,000. This article needs to go with the standard terminology in biology, right?
3. 'Blastocyst,' a more specific term than 'embryo' (you agree, right?) is used in stem cell discussions because otherwise laymen sometimes mistakenly picture a later stage of development that bears resemblance to a human. You agree that's sound reasoning, right?--Nectarflowed ^T 08:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Polls lumping together responses

The big thing to watch out for with polls in this area seems to be that they like to lump categories together. In, say, a pro-embryonic stem cell research poll, those that favour ESC, and those that favour Bush's limited support of ESC are lumped together as supporting ESC. On the other side, those that oppose any funding of ESC and those that support Bush's compromise are lumped together as opposing ESC. That explains why the 2 polls I removed had opposite results.

I removed them because their lumped data is worthless and we don't have the actual data. The two polls we have now, on the other hand, are more specific in their wording, allowing us to determine that they haven't played the lumping trick.--Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

Empirical proof of statistics

RE: Roughly one third of the U.S, (100 million), is believed to themselves have, or to have friends or family members who have, illnesses that might be aided by stem cell research.

I doubt that anyone could actually prove this rather grandiose claim. The sentence itself is laden with get out clauses (‘roughly’, ‘believed to’, ‘might’). And the reference for this sentence is highly dubious. It does not support the claim with any empirical proof. But then again nobody in their right mind could conceivably try to support such a claim with empirical proof.--CJ 3 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)

It's quite easy to make estimates on how many individuals have a disease. By 'empirical proof,' do you mean being able to line up 100 million people and visually verify the accuracy of the statement? Statistics is abstract, but is nonetheless considered to be a valid field of inquiry. The source is adequate. You're welcome to provide counter citations. I'm not sure why you're opposing this sentence; it doesn't make embryonic stem cells not look bad.--Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 21:24 (UTC

The article makes several hype based assumptions and this particular utterance is symptomatic of that. Plus, nobody even knows whether or not stem cell research will actually work. If it does work, we don't know exactly what diseases and conditions it will assist with/cure. There are many socio-scientific uncertainties surrounding the research. And it may well prove to be a red herring. We could make pure speculative statements about SCR if we want (such as the debated utterance) or we could try to maintain encyclopaedic standards. I’d prefer that we avoid speculative hype based statements. --CJ 3 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Adult stem cells are already being used in many treatments. You might find the NIH FAQ useful in fact-checking any questionable assertions. If you do, feel free to insert footnotes into the article, as it should eventually be better referenced.

NIH FAQ: "Adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs) are currently [...] commonly used to treat human diseases. Doctors have been transferring HSCs in bone marrow transplants for over 40 years. More advanced techniques of collecting, or "harvesting", HSCs are now used in order to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders."[8]--Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not resolve our problem with the speculative statements regarding "one third of the U.S, (100 million)". If SCR does work and if it is economically viable to use SCR technologies on a widespread scale (and these are a big ifs) we still do not know exactly what it will cure/help with. Therefore, how can we speculate at the number of people whom such technologies will affect? --CJ 3 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)

The statement is published in the Chicago Tribune article. A primary source would be better, but this is fine for an uncontroversial statement. Note that the above quote confirms that stem cells, specifically adult stem cells, have "commonly" been being used in treatments for a long time.--Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

Dear Nectarflowed: This is continuing and repeated argument, not just raised by myself, but also CJ and others in the past. Until there is more evidence that stem cell research, and that includes both ASCR and ESCR, CAN treatment one-third of the U.S. population it remains a speculative statement. It will great if ASCR AND ESCR turn out to actually meet these expectations, but until that happens it is mere speculation and does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia article. What we can say without question is that ASCR has been used to treat approximately one hundred various medical conditions.----Keetoowah 4 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)

This may have been a misreading of the quote. The 1/3 refers to people who have friends or family who have such conditions, or have a condition themselves. The scientific community is not as clueless as you're portraying them to be. To formulate that statistic the first step is to identify the conditions that are, by consensus or majority agreement in the scientific field, expected to likely benefit from the results of stem cell research, both adult and embryonic. The second step is to obtain figures that estimate how many individuals have those conditions. The third step is to add those together and factor in sociological models detailing average social circle size etc.

It's true that the statement only refers to what is expected, not to empirical facts. I don't think you guys mean to say that Encyclopedias can't include reference to scientific expectations, or even quote sources referring to scientific expectations. You're going to need to demonstrate that there is disagreement regarding the Chicago Tribune article's otherwise uncontroversial statement.--Nectarflowed ^T 4 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

Dear Nectarflowed, I do not think that this dialogue is a consequence of a misreading. It is actually a consequence of the debated and highly controversial utterance. Of course we can discuss expectations in the article. However, in the article, it might also be worthwhile noting that these utterances are just that: expectations. I suggest that we put our crystal balls away and stop guessing at what’s gonna happen in the future. Historians of science and technology will tell you that it has been incredibly difficult to predict the eventual outcomes of innovation. At the moment however the article portrays the future of research in a very linear and deterministic fashion, as though the future of the resultant technologies is practically certain. The debated utterance is only really the tip of the ice berg. The article is terribly one-sided and biased in favour of the pro-research lobby. It is thoroughly laden with hype based speculation, such as the currently debated utterance. And it has a tendency to predict the future of SCR without giving sufficient recourse to the inherent complexity in making such predictions.

At the moment I do not have the time to make the sort of widespread changes that are necessary, but I would appreciate it if everyone gave some thought to the introductory definition, as discussed above on this discussion page. Is there a contradiction between the introductory definition and the definition of a pluripotent stem cell? I haven't changed this because I don't actually know if there is a contradiction. It just looks like there might be.--CJ 4 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)

This article matches mainstream scientific consensus on the matter. Please verify this yourself before making accusations by reading the NIH FAQ.[9]--Nectarflowed ^T 4 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

That doesn't make things any clearer. The contradiction still appears to exist in the introduction. See alexboldts comments above.

And another thing, are you debating the following statement for any particular reason?

"although there is still a long way to go with the research and there are many scientific uncertainties that need to be addressed".

It doesn't serve a purpose. The preceeding sentence in the intro describes stem cell research in terms of its potential, not in terms of certainties. Stem cell research is seen in scientific consensus to have the potential to be "the future of medicine," and has been used in treatments for decades. Our goal, yours and mine, is to make sure this article reflects scientific consensus.--Nectarflowed ^T 4 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

Our goal is to create an encyclopaedia article on stem cells - not to reflect scientific opinion. And besides it is crudely reductionist to suggest that scientists agree over the definition of a stem cell. Take a look at the following link [10] for a true reflection of the diversity amongst experts.--CJ 4 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)

A science encyclopedia article must reflect scientific consensus. Conceptual topics like destiny don't need to. I browsed the different definitions available at that link. The only notable source listed there is the Columbia Encyclopedia, which defines a blastocyst as having 200-250 cells. The figure I come across most is 100, or 50-150. We should get definitive references on that. Government reports are going to be more reliable sources than encyclopedias. --Nectarflowed ^T 4 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)

The article makes a pretty good job of illustrating who will benefit from SCR, but it does not reflect the voices of those people very well. Neither does it say anything about the dangerous and invasive procedures used to extract embryos from donors, or the ethical issues surrounding consent in these circumstances. Nor anything about the hyperbolic discourse that is used to justify the research. And it makes no mention of the uncertainty that exists. Everybody recognises that SCR has a long way to go before it is scientifically, economically and politically viable! Nobody could doubt that. I sincerely hope that SCR works. I would like to believe that suffering people will - one day - be alleviated of the horrific diseases and conditions that so blight humanity. But I would stress that an encyclopaedia should avoid the hyperbole and stop raising people’s expectations. It’s not fair that sufferers of such conditions should have their hopes raised like this in the name of what is essentially blue skies research. Obviously the debate is not black and white. Even amongst the pro-embryo research lobby there is an argument over how best to procure such embryos. Should we get them from "spare" or "discarded" embryos "left over" from IVF? Or go further and clone embryos for this specific purpose - the so-called therapeutic cloning option? But while these arguments are clear all over the world, this article appears to have made its mind up. This article wants a Brave New World of embryo research and human cloning. It has ironed out all elements of scientific dispute. It has ironed out the voices of those whom SCR will affect. It has ironed out all the voices of the women who will be asked to donate the embryos. It has ironed out the issue surrounding economic viability. Instead you would like it to focus on an illusory scientific consensus. --CJ 4 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Re:"what is essentially blue skies research."

Stem cell research has been used in treatments for decades and new breakthroughs are often announced every couple of months.

Re:"an encyclopaedia should avoid the hyperbole and stop raising people’s expectations."

Note the NIH FAQ's section on Parkinson's trials.[11]

You're welcome to bring well-referenced and notable information to any area of the article that seems neglected.--Nectarflowed ^T 4 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Edwards comment

• Keetowah explained his removal:"Whether H&C misquoted is irrelavant to hype around eby sc res. [...]Shapiro's falsification is irrelavant to whether Edwards TV preacher BS is true or not."

Edwards' quote was widely criticized in the media. What is germane when covering it in a section on stem cell politics is that it the media phenomenon that it generated almost universally misquoted him. This misquotation has been written about, so we do have a reference (it's not original research). What needs to be pointed out is that the criticism changed the structure of Edwards' comment from 'if we do the work in this country' to 'if we elect Kerry."

For example, refer to your original misquotation when you added the comment: "Senator John Edwards claimed that if the John Kerry was elected and embryonic stem cell research was expanded then movie actor Christopher Reeve would get out of his wheelchair and walk."[12] Please explain how this widespread distortion does not obviously meet the requirements of a straw man fallacy. --Nectarflowed ^T 5 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

Dear Nectar: I was wrong. I misquoted him and so did Drudge, et. al., but that does not diminish in anyway the hype that Edwards was attempting to engage in. Throughout the campaign, he was making outlandish statements about how Kerry supports "stem cell research" and that the Bush Adm. did not support "stem cell research". The words stem cell research very rarely were used in the same sentence as embryonic or adult. The vast majority of Americans do not know there is a difference between the two and the Kerry/Edwards campaign is one of the groups who we have to thank for such ignorance. They fed that line of ignorance over and over again. Also, CJ makes a good point. There has not been enough research done to decide if eSC or aSC will be all that beneficial in the long run. Neither you, a solid defender of eSC, nor I, a solid defender of aSC, can say without doubt that stem cell research as a whole will some day be as beneficial as the hype of Ron Reagan, Jr. claims that it will be. Sure, I want aSC to be sucessful, just like you want and hope and wish that eSC is sucessful, but we just don't know at this point. And ultimately this comes down to a debate about the proper use of precious research dollars. There are other potential medical discoveries out there that are competing with eSC and aSC, etc. At this point we just don't know and those other options just might be better than SC. And if think that John Edwards was not participating in TV preacher hype during the Presidential campaing then you just won't see the point that I'm talking about here.--Keetoowah 5 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Yes, of course Edwards was using rhetorical strategies, just like everybody in the political arena always does, including both liberals and conservatives. Please explain why his hyperbole is worth covering but the widespread distortion of his statement is not. If many readers will have already heard the quote, but only a false version, shouldn't this article repair their misunderstanding?

Re:"The vast majority of Americans do not know there is a difference between the two." Nobody who voted in the 2004 election could not know the difference; it was one of the big issues and was widely covered in the media and the presidential debates etc. etc. (One kind "dismembers embryos" and the other doesn't).--Nectarflowed ^T 5 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)

Science Magazine statistic

Correct Keetowah, there is a lot of hype surrounding this whole issue and sadly this article looks as though it has fallen prey to that hype. Therefore, i will contribute toward the moderation of the article by (once more) erasing that debated reference to '1/3rd of U.S. citizens'. Granted, the reference comes from Science but it's still pure speculation laden with hype. --CJ 5 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

CJ, the estimation was made by a reliable source. You're explanation for removal was "Speculation that cannot be proved as nobody knows exactly what conditions SCR will eventually be able to treat." Speculation is different from fact. Facts can be proved. Speculation about the future, even when grounded in statistics, cannot. You're going to need to provide clear demonstration that their statistic is false and we therefore shouldn't quote them, instead of explaining to us the difference between speculation and fact. Right now it's your opinion against the published opinion of Science Magazine. --Nectarflowed ^T 5 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

Nectarflowed: The Science article that you referenced was published 5 years ago. Not only is it pure (hype-laden) speculation, but it is also horribly out of date. Considering the pace of change in the field I recommend that you either find another reference, or give up the ghost completely.--CJ 5 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

It's unlikely that such statistics are "pure" hype. They also involve math, yes? I haven't seen any indication that the field has changed its mind on the potential treatability of these conditions referred to in their article. If you still disagree with them, you're going to need to demonstrate something more than that it was published 5 years ago.--Nectarflowed ^T 5 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

Okay Nectarflowed. If you insist on keeping that statement (for the moment) then please feel free. I could very easily insert hype based statements to the contrary, such as this one from Nigel Cameron (who is the President of the Institute of Technology in Chicago): "embryo stem cells can only be had by killing the embryo", which was recently published in one of the UK's most eminent newspapers The Guardian (19th May 2005). By your logic, a respectable source has printed this statement. And so if anyone wants to delete Cameron’s statement then they must supplement the deletion with references that explicitly refutes the suggestion – which will be impossible because his reasoning is based on ethical judgment. Do you see how futile this line of argumentation can be? I have given you ample demonstration of why we should avoid pure speculation, but you seem intent on being uncooperative.--CJ 5 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

Thanks for being diplomatic with me. My argument is that if a point is germane, to justify removal there needs to be a rigorous reason for removing it. Governments regularly 'speculate' statistically on things like population growth or growth in a medical area; such speculations are not in themselves invalid or unuseful. Cameron's statement looks to me like a statement of fact (though maybe incomplete), not an ethical judgement, which would be "we [should/should not] terminate blastocysts for research."--Nectarflowed ^T 5 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)

Conform to mainstream medical opinion

The mainstream medical opinion is that stem cell research has the potential to be the future of medicine. Note the key word here, "potential." This means that, from the information we have now, 'this is how it looks.' The statement does not specify that the future of medicine is going to come tomorrow, nor does it specify that SCR is guaranteed to manifest all of the potential presently observed. Please find notable sources that indicate mainstream medical opinion is actually negative toward the potential of stem cell research.--Nectarflowed ^T 8 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)

Why should wikipedia seek to reflect "mainstream medical opinion"?

This is an encyclopaedia and as such it should not reflect the specific interests of a minority group.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

Besides there is no "mainstream" consensus on the matter. Experts are divided over SCR.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)

The definition of 'mainstream' is 'the prevailing current of thought,' i.e. the majority view. See medical consensus for more information. If you only listen to sources from the extreme political right or left, everything you hear from other sources, even mainstream science, is going to sound like it's part of a conspiracy. To read about mainstream consensus on the matter, review the NIH FAQ. You might also find useful their "Stem Cell Basics" chapter: What are the potential uses of human stem cells and the obstacles that must be overcome before these potential uses will be realized?--Nectarflowed ^T 8 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)

Experts are divided. Even amongst the pro-embryo research lobby there is an argument over how best to procure such embryos. Should we get them from "spare" or "discarded" embryos "left over" from IVF? Or go further and clone embryos for this specific purpose - the so-called therapeutic cloning option? But while these arguments are clear all over the world, you seem to think that everything is black and white.--Nicholas 9 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)

Yes, some issues in stem cell research are debated, but the potential applications are established and broad.

1. The most promising potential application is the ability to create cells and tissues for medical therapies (called cell-based therapies, or regenerative medicine), and this has the potential to profoundly change the treatments of "a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis." (NIH)[13] The ability to replenish any type of tissue in the human body would profoundly change most areas of medicine.
2. Another potential benefit is understanding the process in which stem cells transform "from a mere cluster of identical cells into the large and varied forms that comprise the human body today."[14] This has the potential to create treatments for "some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects," which result from errors in this process. (NIH)--Nectarflowed ^T 19:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Relativism

Keetowah, I don't think you're meaning to say increased funding doesn't produce better results than decreased funding, are you?--Nectarflowed ^T 8 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Dear Nectar: What are you referring to? In other words, what kind of trap are you trying to lay for me?----Keetoowah 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Haha. Let me be more specific, I was referring to your addition: "critics pointed out that voting for one person for President will not cure any disease." Critics said a lot of things here, some of it false, as we've talked about, so we should probably only include criticisms that are useful to the debate. Edwards statement was that if we do the research, the research that will have increased funding under Kerry, treatments will be developed. I don't understand why this criticism is useful, as obviously voting for increased funding will have [will likely have] better research results, right? --Nectarflowed ^T 8 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

No, my young friend. Increased funding does NOT necessarily mean that you will get better research results. Yes, it would be nice if increased funding would always lead to better research results, but life does NOT work that way. Sometimes increased research funding simply leads to more wasted money. I know that you are young and optimistic, but you need to realize that SC research may not lead to any more treatments than we have today. And I am referring to both aSC research and eSC research. That is NOT the outcome that I want to see, but CJ does have a point. SC could turn out to be a dead end. And yeah you are too young to be intimately familiar with other boondoogles in the past. The Waxahachie atom smasher comes to mind. There is potential but we don't know that SC is going to lead to anything. Investors put money into great ideas each and everyday that end up leading to absolutely nothing. You should really review all of the biotech failures in the last 5 to 10 years and you will understand what CJ and I are trying to get at. Yeah, I'm obviously not a Kerry or Edwards supporter, but does not diminsh my point about more research money spending. You are young and you obviously believe that money federal spending solves all problems, but that is not always the case.----Keetoowah 8 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

1. My old and senile friend ;) You must admit that, in general, $20 million is more likely to produce more results than $10 million.
2. Re: "There is potential but we don't know that SC is going to lead to anything." Mainstream medical opinion is that stem cell research along with other cell therapies and with gene therapies are likely to play a significant role in the future of medicine. Of course no scientists are talking in certainties, but, what we do possess - and what this article must go with - is mainstream medical opinion regarding how things look at the current time.--Nectarflowed ^T 9 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

Similar national disease levels

CJ, it's common in science articles to have more data from the US than from other countries. This is because the US does the largest share of scientific research, something which is to be expected, as it is a very large country with a lot of capital. There's no reason to think the US data can't be extrapolated. Interested readers can look at the footnote and see where that data comes from (the US). --Nectarflowed ^T 8 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)

RE: "CJ, please keep your argument on the talk page, rather than bringing it to the article".

You might remember that I actually introduced myself to the stem cell discussion here on wikipedia way back on the 10th of March (see above) by saying:

I think that the introductory definition is problematic. It gives the impression that stem cell technologies are going to have a very linear innovation trajectory. In other words, it implies that the future of research is already determined. This is obviously not the case. The article, quite rightly, implies that a great deal of scientific uncertainty still exists. However, in the introductory definition we are given no sense of this. The future of such technologies is by no means certain. Anything could potentially happen with stem cell research. As it currently stands the introductory definition, rather crudely, reduces the scope of potential outcomes.

In reply, both Keetoowah and yourself rubbished my suggestion. So, I did actually "keep [my] argument on the talk page". The only problem is that nobody listened. I was forced to take other measures. I think you have done a relatively good job with this article, so far, however you must learn to trust others. Granted, I am pleased to see that you have finally made the introduction more balanced. Thanks,--Nicholas 9 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

• "In countries that data is available for ...". This sentence is terribly US-centric, not to mention incalculable and outdated. I am going to delete it for the umpteenth time.

• “Medical researchers” … plainly not all medical researchers believe this much. You might want to change it to “Stem cell medical researchers” or just “advocates of research”. “Medical researchers” - alone – is misleading. --Nicholas 08:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Re: "incalculable and outdated." The statistic is calculable because the potential for stem cell research is established and data is available for the number of people with certain diseases. The data is from 2000, and thus is not outdated.
2. Re:"'Medical researchers' - alone - is misleading." The potential is established (see above #Conform_to_mainstream_medical_opinion and can be regarded as consensus scientific opinion. This is standard language usage.--Nectarflowed ^T 00:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

RE: "Medical researchers" Presumably you just mean medical researchers in this area of science?--Nicholas 10:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Binary Opposites

I don't think it's very accurate to present the ethical debate in terms of two distinct, polar opposite camps: science Vs. conservative religous people. This would seem to imply that there is no middle ground. I think you will find people that cannot be easily lumped into either of these two categories. Over time I will seek out some references for this argument.--Nicholas 13:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the issues in the ethical debate seem to come down to whether the person believes blastocysts have human qualities, or are just tissue. Biologically speaking, they are undifferentiated tissue, with no capacity for feeling (which is less feeling than a hair follicle or mosquito has), so the belief that they should be protected must come from beliefs outside of science regarding blastocysts.--Nectarflowed ^T 21:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Government reports

It's normal in science topics to note summaries of the facts given in statements meant to represent mainstream scientific opinion. For example, the race and intelligence article, written by editors who are professional scientists, gives minority scientific views that are popular among the public, and goes on: "These views contrast with those expressed in "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,"[4] a report from the American Psychological Association, and "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[5], a statement signed by fifty-two professors, including researchers in the study of intelligence and related fields, meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence"."--Nectarflowed ^T 23:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, Government reports on the matter that are meant to represent mainstream medical opinion are very germane. In relativistic world views, a belief is valid just because someone feels that way. That's a nice idea, but this is an article on science and it has to note representations of mainstream medical opinion. As far as I understand, you're not disputing the content of the following sentence?

"This conclusion is not upheld by government reports meant to represent mainstream medical opinion on the matter, which view embryonic stem cell research as having "much greater" developmental potential.[15] (NIH)"--Nectarflowed ^T 19:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Stem cell surgery

would you think the Stem Cell Surgery article i've written be ideal to merge with Stem cell? How can we merge so many articles based on stem cells anyway, won't the article just be too big? - User:AMsisscorsister

Yeah, I think that merge looks like a good idea. It looks like that article covers details that encyclopedias more typically summarize concisely. The present 'Treatments' section might be a good example. Links to news articles on the subject can be provided for details like that woman's story.--Nectarflowed ^T 07:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this article would benefit from some of the sections being summarized, with a tag linking to the main page for that section, as is done at United States.--Nectarflowed ^T 07:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Science Magazine quote

"In the U.S. (the only country for which this estimate is available) one third of the population is estimated to suffer from illnesses that might be alleviated by cell transplantation technologies that use pluripotent stem cells."

After reviewing the source (and the previous discussion on this quote) I think this line needs to be removed for the following reasons.

First, the source is not objective. It's titled as a "Viewpoint" [16] The author is identified as representing the Alliance for Aging Research which is a Washington based political advocacy/lobbying group [17]. I don't think the opening paragraphs of an encyclopedia article should cite the editorial opinion of an inside the beltway lobbyist.

Second, look at the diseases that are claimed to be curable by stemcells: cardiovascular diseases, autoimmune diseases, cancers, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. The inclusion of every disease under the sun defies reason. Surely not all "cardiovascular diseases" and "autoimmune diseases" and "cancers" are amenable to stem cell research. My conclusion is that this list is not a careful reflection of scientific/medical consensus but is a laundry list of all high profile diseases which is designed to convince readers of a particular editorial viewpoint: lots of government funding should be showered on stem cell researchers.

Third, scientists don't know what causes many of these diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. The Wikipedia article on Alzheimer's states: "Three major competing hypotheses exist to explain the cause of the disease." The Wikipedia article on Parkinson's states: "The cause of Parkinson's disease is not known." How can anyone assert that stem cells can cure Parkinson's and Alzheimer's when we don't even know what causes these diseases?

Fourth, are there no other treatments (ie drugs, surgery, gene therapy, implantable devices) for any of these diseases with more potential than stem cell therapy? Once we better understand these illnesses it's likely that we'll end up treating them with pills, not stem cells. If there are more promising avenues of research then what is the point of lumping all diseases under the rubric of stem cell therapy? What point other than political advocacy?

The source isn't objective. The 100 million figure isn't credible. We should cite better sources than this. --Herb West 02:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree--Nicholas 10:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree----Keetoowah 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Lancet

Who is going to read the review in this week's Lancet and fact-check this article? JFW | T@lk 21:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

adult stem cell successes?

Claiming 100 diseases have been cured by adult stem cells is an overstatement. It is a stretch to claim that diseases such as diabetes and parkinsons have been cured by stem cells. Diabetes can be cured by islet transplants -- the benefit is seen immediately by restoration of blood glucose control. This is therefore not due to stem cells -- fully differentiated beta cells are responsible. Stem cells or more likely the beta cells themselves could be responsible for long term survival of the transplant by replacing beta cells that die over time, however this has not been demonstrated.

It might be useful to define what is meant by stem cell therapy. The most stringent definition may include being able to isolate, and grow the stem cells in the lab, then differentiating them to the desired cell type, followed by transplantation. This would narrow the successes greatly, and would probably then only include Genzyme's product for replacing damaged cartilage.

How best to reflect this in the article? 4.156.36.151

First of all, please sign your posts. Second, the article does not state that adult stem cells have "cured" anything. What is does say is successfully treated. And that is a true statement. There is a tremendous difference between treatment and cures. I don't see your complaint.-----Keetoowah 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the newbie mistake, i'll sign this time. The article does indeed say succesfully treated, not cured, as you observed. I would like to revise my comments to read "treated" instead of "cured". I then think my comments are relevant. I was not complaining, but merely pointing out what I understand to be the state of the art. I believe it is crucial to be as accurate as possible with this issue as we are at a critical time in a debate which may determine the future of embryonic vs. adult stem cell research. To make my view clear I believe both avenues need to be explored fully. A problem I have seen is that those opposed to embryonic stem cell (ESC) research often say that adult stem cells have treated many diseases while ESC have not. It is true that ESC have not, but human ESC have only been around for 7 years, and without much federal funding support. When you discuss the number of treated diseases it would be helpful to point out what organism this was done in; if in humans, were there controlled clinical trials to show safety and efficacy; is this treatment done routinely, etc. I think including some of these details would give readers a more accurate picture of the science. --Alandavid 01:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The what?

From the "Treatment" section:

Current treatments

For over 30 years, bone marrow (adult) stem cells have been used to treat cancer patients with conditions such as leukemia and lymphoma. During chemotherapy, most growing cells are killed by the cytotoxic agents. These agents not only kill the leukemia or neoplastic cells, but also the, which release the stem cells from the bone-marrow. These are removed before chemotherapy, which kills most of them, and are re-injected afterwards.

The what? Does anybody know?

Brazil

I think the information about stem-cell research in Brazil as being "recently approved" is very inaccurate.

Since 1999, the CONEP (abbr for: National Committee for Ethical Researches) has received approximately 50 projects for the therapeutic application of adult stem-cells. The positive results of such investment places Brazil in a featured position in the field, among with countries such as Germany and France. Also, Brazil is a leader in cardio-vascular research involving stem-cells, which includes studies about the Chagas disease. On July of 2005, the Ministry of Health started its biggest research in cardiology involving stem-cells, with 1,200 patients and about 40 research centres in the entire country.

The country is also a leader in stem-cell research for diseases such as diabetes and multiple-sclerosis. There are cases of patients with diabetes of type 1 in Brazil being cured after a treatment with stem-cells. --Pinnecco 09:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This article cited in Nature Medicine

The definition of stem cell in this article was cited in a commentary in Nature Medicine (11, 1026 - 1028 (2005), ref. 1). Kudos to the editors!

Did anybody see this Nature Medicine article? I wonder what part they cited.--17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah well done guys, the cite was in the first paragraph: "Much about stem cells is controversial. For example, even the question 'what is a stem cell?' arouses controversy. One definition is that they are 'primal undifferentiated cells which retain the ability to differentiate into other cell types...[which] allows them to act as a repair system for the body, replenishing other cells as long as the organism is alive'. This definition is controversial for at least two reasons..." from Perspectives on the properties of stem cells (Nature Medicine, Volume 11, p1026 - 1028, 2005) --Brendanfox 07:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

External links out of control

This article has way too many external links. Wikipedia articles should not be a collection of links to external sites. If these links have been used as refereces they should be footnoted and moved to the References section. Otherwise I propose to reduce the number of external links to a much more reasonable number (something well under 10). --Martyman-(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would guess that some of the news article were refs, the guides section could definatey use a pruning.--nixie 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• One link goes to stemcellresearch.org. This site has a clear bias on the subject.

Yeah, it's clearly biased in favor of the truth. How dare they? Wikipedia shouldn't stand for such one-sidedness. Wikipedia is supposed to be fair and balanced and give all points of view equal standing. As devout Wikipedians we must endeavor to give lies just as much of a forum as the truth. Anything else would be taking sides.

blastocyst cells or egg cells

"achieved by fusing an egg cell, the nucleus (containing the genetic material: DNA) of which is removed, with a patient's cell. The fused cell produced (containing only the DNA of the patient) is allowed to grow to the size of a few tens of cells, and stem cells are then extracted. Because they are genetically compatible with the patient, the patient's immune system will not reject differentiated cells derived from these embryonic stem cells. More commonly, they are obtained for research purposes from uncloned blastocysts, such as those discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics."

This suggests that unfertilized egg cells are the same as blastocyst cells. I suppose after you replace the nucleus there may be little difference but I would like to see accurate. --Gbleem 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Scientists are only allowed to use these discarded blastocysts after assessment by specialized committees that thoroughly check the research goals of these scientists." I'm assuming that this depends on the country the research is performed in. Who inforces this? --Gbleem 19:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've just finished reading the article and formed the opinion that it doesn't handle the embryonic stem cell controversy very well, so I placed the NPOV tag into the article. One example in particular is:

"Catholics view embryonic stem cell research - not adult stem cell research though - as intrinsically evil and never to be supported since it requires the death of an innocent human life created by God. Others do not view a blastocyst as a human being, and may instead see opposition of stem cell research as unfounded due to the suffering that new medical technologies could prevent. Many Jews,Hindus, Muslims, Humanists, Mormons, and Unitarian Universalists, liberal members of the Church of Christ, as well as a significant number of mainstream Christians are supportive of embryonic stem cell research."

I'll probably work away at it over the next few days, so just leave any comments here. --Brendanfox 08:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I must agree that the last sentence could be rephrased, after all, it leaves out Shintoists, some Buddhists and Confucianists... etc. However, I don't really see a NPOV violation. Wolf ODonnell 11:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem with this statement is that it essentially tries to create a confrontational atmosphere of sorts, a "Catholics vs everyone else" stance that really doesn't exist, and even if it did should not be encouraged. 10:08, 27 October 2006

"Yet As Government Reports Point Out"

Which Government has reported this, when did they report it. Please cite references

I think you might have missed the reference. If you follow the links that are given you will find that this quotation is taken from the National Institutes of Health (2004). --Nicholas 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Spore-like Cells

I removed the section on spore-like cells from the article. The cited source is from 2001 so I performed a search on Web of Knowledge and found that the authors have not published any further evidence of so-called spore-like cells in the past 4 years. Since the work has not been replicated it is impossible to know whether it is accurate. The fact that the authors have not published anything further on spore-like cells in 4 years suggests to me that something is likely wrong with the findings of their first paper. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's guidelines are but IMO it's peculiar to quote any scientific primary literature in a general encyclopedia. --Herb West 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So called "spore-like cells" should not be in the article. That section of the article is based on the unsubstantitated observations of a single group of researchers that have published their findings only one single time five years ago. In the intervening five years they have published nothing to corrobarate their claims of "spore-like cells." Since there hasn't been a publication in five years, "spore-like cells" can't even be called an ongoing subject of research. The absence of publications corroborating the existence of "spore-like cells" likely means that there are no such things as "spore-like cells" or that the scientific community views "spore-like cells" as possessing so little significance that it doesn't merit further research. Either way, "spore-like cells" should not be in this article. --Herb West 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This deletion was not discussed apart from your 7 Jan comment. You also did not include an edit summary. Please await further comments before removing what appears to be bona fide material. JFW | T@lk 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I support Herbs edits, 1 paper and no further research suggest that this topic is not well developed, and probably should appear in a general article on Stem Cells.--nixie 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

After further investigation, 14 papers cite the article discussed, of the ones I read though they mentioned that some groups have "claimed to find" spore like cells, but research presented in the paper citing the research does not confirm the research; no subsequent papers have been published by the same authors on spore like cells.--nixie 01:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Stem Cell Research Home

• Stem Cell Protocols and Research Information

If someone take his time to investigate, he will see that you spammed more that 20 articles with a links to molecularstation.com . The most rediculos spamming was a link to abovementioned web site plesed on disambiguation page. The articles that got spammed include but not limited by:

Transcription (genetics) Enhancer Promoter Mammalian embryogenesis Stem cell line Stem cell Vergina Sun Bioinformatics Arabidopsis Drosophila melanogaster Caenorhabditis elegans RNA interference Small interfering RNA Peptide mass fingerprinting DNA RNA Protein Proteomics RT-PCR Complementary DNA Gene Ontology DNA microarray Splicing (genetics)

And most of thouse links lead to simple links directories pages. Have fun. TestPilot 07:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hwang Woo-Suk and the representation of controversy

This article should contain a section devoted to the recent controversy surrounding Hwang Woo-Suk. Such a section would contribute towards the article's representation of the social and ethical controversies that surround SCR. At the moment the article appears to gloss over the controversies with misleading information about blastocysts/embryos being (mistakenly and irrationally) viewed as "human". Not everyone who opposes eSCR maintains this position. Indeed, the article does not even give any references for this position. Can someone provide such a reference? People are rightfully concerned about SCR for a number of reasons; not least because they worry that eSCR, in particular, could result in the destruction of human embryos for profit or just blue skies research.--Nicholas 12:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike May?

Mike May redirect here... but shouldn't, since there's no content here; and there was no mergable content in the former stub about him. Delete the redirect? 02:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

An Apology

I must apologise. In my haste to get rid of some vandalism, I accidentally overlooked the largest piece of vandalism of all and must have accidentally deleted a whole section of the article. How that happened I have no idea, because I could have sworn I checked the article after reverting it.

P.S. Is there a way of banning ISP Addresses? Wolf ODonnell 11:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

New article

I split off the ethics section into a new article, stem cell bioethics. This will allow stem cell to specialize in the biological and medical issues regarding stem cells and stem cell bioethics to carry the bulk of the debate and ethics material. Still working... silsor 17:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this move is appropriate for a number of reasons. Largely, I am opposed to this move, because it would appear to reinforce a selective view of ethics (alleviating suffering is ethical, opposing research is not) and at the same time it would appear to artificially divorce biology from ethics - as though the two fields were totally separate and unrelated. Like a number of the contributors to this discussion page, I feel that this article fails to adequately represent the ethical (and social) issues at the heart of stem cell research. In time, I hope that these critical voices will collaborate, to better effect, to achieve a meaningful improvement in the representation of stem cells and social and ethical issues.--Nicholas 20:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see two points there. In response to your first one, I'm not sure how the split draws a line in ethics anywhere. There is probably content in stem cell that needs to go to stem cell bioethics and vice versa; I'm not trying to draw any lines at all, just separate our coverage of the scientific and medical facts about stem cells from the giant subtopic of the stem cell research controversy. Which brings up your second point: I'm not saying that biology and ethics are unrelated; in fact, that's why I called the article "bioethics". According to our article on bioethics, it "concerns the ethical questions that arise in the relationships between biology, medicine, cybernetics, politics, law, philosophy, and theology". Isn't this an appropriate title? silsor 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the sectioning is an excellent idea. The intent of the division doesn't seem to be to remove any mention of the ethical considerations of stem cell research from this article. Rather, it would appear to be creating a subarticle to specifically address ethical questions in greater detail. This isn't an uncommon practice—evolution has subarticles for Social implications of the theory of evolution and Creation-evolution controversy; autism has controversies in autism; abortion has abortion debate. I would expect that other portions of this article would also spawn subarticles as their size and detail grow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The difference between this and the articles that you mention (evolution, autism and abortion) is that the proposed changes to the stem cell article include a complete removal of the section titled "ethics" to another sub-article, whereas the articles that TenOfAllTrades mentions contain at least some discussion of the issues presented in the sub-article. By all means, create a new article on stem cell bioethics, but to leave the main stem cell article bereft of an ethics section, that is akin to discussing George Bush without discussing the war in Iraq - in fact, perhaps the proposed changes are even worse than that.--Nicholas 10:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• While I agree with the split, the execution is a bit crude, there needs to be a short summary of the basic issues left in this article.--nixie 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Nicholas and nixie, I wrote a short introduction to some of the main points of the ethics involved. Is this any better? silsor 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good summary, thanks.--nixie 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I’m marginally happier with the wording that you have used for this - especially by comparison to the bulk of the text that previously existed in that space. However, I continue to have reservations with the proposed changes. Firstly, the term "bioethics" is problematic. It should not be confused with "ethics proper", nor should it be confused with “religious concerns“, “sociological concerns”, nor concerns relating to policy and finance. See the following article titled 'What is bioethics?' [18]. If these proposed changes are to go-ahead, I suggest that we rename the new article, possibly using 'Controversy surrounding stem cell research' as the title, or something of that ilk, which does not privilege one set of concerns over the other. The second reservation that I have relates, i suppose, to the content of the proposed “bioethics article”, which tends to represent the critics of eSCR as being either religious or luddites, opposed to progress; this undermines the many moral, sociological and political concerns which have been expressed.--Nicholas 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this is Wikipedia, you can go ahead and do any of that. My only goal is to give the controversy its own article. silsor 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the principles behind Wikipedia. I have tried to make several contributions to this article, but these contributions have been met with hostility. Please see the discussions which have taken place, above, the history page, and note the hostility towards my contributions - one Wikipedian took such a dislike towards my contributions that they declared me to be "confused, ... and mixing science with politics". In order for me to carry out the widespread changes that are necessary, I will need to spend a considerable amount of time building up a library of references etc., putting them together, before I begin to negotiate the changes. This is obviously a long term goal. In the meantime, I appreciate that you want to give the controversy its own article, but as I have stated, I do not think that this is a good idea because the proposed move perpetuates the illusion that the main article reflects "scientific fact" and the "bioethics" article relates to something distinctly different - it apparently relates the views of religious people and luddites.--Nicholas 00:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with current fashion, I split off the crystal ball section (erm, the "Treatments Section") into a new article, stem cell treatments. This will allow stem cell to specialize in the "scientific fact" and free it from making speculative predictions. --Nicholas 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've rephrased the 'Controversy' section because some of the terminology was misleading. In particular, I've adjusted the final sentence, which previously stated "The resulting controversy has spurred many nations around the world to pass regulation regarding research ...". This is factually incorrect. Several western nations have stuck to, or simply tweaked at the edges, the existing regulatory frameworks; such as those which had previously regulated IVF.

That text is from the original article, so it needs to be changed in stem cell controversy too. silsor 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is part of the problem that has been created by the recent split. I'll do it when I have time. --Nicholas 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that the stem cell article, itself, has improved recently - especially in terms of presentation, clarity and succinctness - however I can’ help but feeling that we’ve done the wrong thing by creating sub-articles and divorcing much of the content away from the main article.

• Firstly, I suppose you could say that I object for philosophical reasons. As things stand, with the main article focusing on “the science” and the sub-article focusing on “the ethics”, the Wikipedia community appears to be embracing the commonly held (positivistic) assumption that ‘science’ is driven by its own internal logic and can be distinguished from other pursuits such as ethics, theology and sociology. For obvious reasons, this illusory distinction is bound to appeal to the pro-research lobby who have sought to clearly and definitely draw a line in the sand between “the authoritative word of science”, on the one hand, and “ethical”/“moralistic”/luddite concerns, on the other.
• Secondly, I also object to recent changes on practical grounds. Maintaining multiple articles is inevitably more difficult than maintaining a single article. If a stable version of Wikipedia is ever to be published, and I’m not sure that this will (or even should) happen, it is going to be much more difficult to merge all the existing stem cell material into a useful and coherent whole.
• Thirdly, readers must now trawl through several different articles in order to get ‘the big picture’.

So, I accept that recent changes have improved the stem cell article, itself, but this minor improvement has come at the expense the communities coverage of the topic as a whole, which is now fragmented all over the place and inconsistent between articles - not to mention largely one-sided.--Nicholas 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[19], [20]. silsor 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, however, in some articles this isn't suitable! You wouldn't have an article on George W. Bush, without sufficiently discussing his war in Iraq or his domestic policies; likewise you wouldn't have an article on eugenics without giving proper recourse to moral, social and ethical issues.--Nicholas 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean to link here and here? These are separate articles. If you're saying that stem cell needs more summary, like the George W. Bush article has summary of those two articles, I don't see the problem - that's easily fixable using fewer words than your last few comments on this talk page. silsor 17:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you knew what was meant. Thanks though --Nicholas 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A short blurb isn’t enough in my opinion. This article is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article based on stems cell and not a scientific definition of a stem cell. Information is best understood in its context and the current split creates the illusion that stem cell research is purely technical, and somehow separate from ethics and politics. Therefore, I think it is only appropriate that the controversy be tackled - in full - in the appropriate context. --Nicholas 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of breaking off sections (while leaving a summary in the original article) is not to obscure but to reveal. The political and ethical aspects of stem cell research are certainly a meaty enough topic to deserve their own full treatment in their own full article. If any of the technical sections of this article get to be too unweildy, I'd encourage breaking them off into their own articles too.

Remember, we're an encyclopedia, first and foremost. We're going to have kids asking, "What's a stem cell?" showing up here, and it's not helpful to append a lengthy ethical debate on to the answer to what should be a fairly straightforward technical question. We give them a pointer and a short description to the ethical debate if that's what they're looking for, just as you've done with the stem cell therapies section, Nicholas.

Putting the ethical issues into their own article is editorially pleasing, too—it cuts down on the tension that arises over how much of the stem cell article should be devoted to ethics, and resolves the question of whether or not that proportion is 'balanced'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't "resolve" anything. I'd argue that this split compounds already existing problems. The division is a Bad Thing, to paraphrase User:TenOfAllTrades's edit summaries. In the context of this article, I am definitely a mergist and I disagree with the suggestion that it is necessary to split the article because ethical issues are too "unwieldy". If you read almost any popular commentary on SCR it will contain significant information regarding ethical and moral issues - but not on Wikipedia, it appears content to act as a scientific dictionary, as opposed to serving its stated purpose as an encyclopaedia. People want to read about the ethical and political information. This is why SCR is always in the news. This information is best understood in its context. Regarding your claims that this article should be "a fairly straightforward technical question", such claims can only reinforce my argument that this split has had the effect of portraying science and technology to be independent from ethical and moral pursuits. This comment also flies in the face of the inherent social, scientific and technological difficulties that surround SCR. Nothing with this topic is "straightforward" - there even exists a massive debate amongst eSCR scientists over the definition of a stem cell and the best method of obtaining embryonic stem cells.--Nicholas 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

References & Extras

Can I delete many of those external links and news stories? Wikipedia should be more than just a collection of external links.--Nicholas 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I object to the photo because it represents the embryo as being simplistic ball of cells, it denies the embryo’s significance as a potential human being, and such photo’s are commonly brandished by the pro-research lobby as a justification for controversial experiments. This photo is the inverse of the anti-abortion campaigners who brandish horrible images of aborted foetuses in order to further their cause. I vote that we delete the photo. --Nicholas 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the stem cells used for research do look exactly like the ones in the picture:little amorphous blobs of cells. As far as I know–and please correct me if I'm mistaken–the embryonic stem cells used for research are taken from very early stage embryos and not from anything close to a late-stage fetus.

It is also worth noting that the picture is of murine stem cells. The embryo they were collected from never had any 'significance as a potential human being' because those are mouse cells. I'd say leave the photo alone. It is meant to be illustrative; it tells our readers that this is what stem cells look like—no more, no less. If you have good, factual, well-referenced sources that argue that scientists misrepresent the nature of their work by orchestrated photo campaigns, the discussion of that may belong in stem cell controversy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The cells are generally extracted from embryos a few days old, ranging from 50 to 150 cells. If you look at the photos, they are, of course, a ball of cells in that range.--Nectar 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for references on this.--Nicholas 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've found a reference for this. Here, the social scientist, Sarah Parry states "stem cell scientists use pictures to illustrate the visual likeness of embryos to a “collection of cells”. It is on these grounds that I object to the photo used in this page. This photo is the inverse of the anti-abortion campaigners who brandish horrible images of aobrted foetuses in order to further their cause.--Nicholas 13:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, blastocysts (or early stage embryos, if you prefer) are what they are; including a picture of them doesn't in itself seem pov. (npov means presenting arguments neutrally, not that the evidence itself is neutral.) I would on the same grounds support the relevance of an aborted fetus image to the abortion page.--Nectar 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Businesses section

I've removed this section because I don't think it's appropriate for our article. At the time of its removal, it contained a link to a single company. An admittedly quick perusal of the company website didn't reveal anything to distinguish it from the dozens of other companies working on various aspects of stem cell therapies, and I don't want to see this article turn into a Yellow Pages listing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this.--Nicholas 22:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to create eSC without destroying the embryo

Hi RJII, regarding attempts to create pluripotent stem cell lines without destroying the embryo and ACT, are you referring to this story: [21]? Have you noticed that these experiments were conducted using mouse embryo's? In your edit summaries you suggested that the ACT process "works" and you accused me of "censoring" your edits. I am not censoring anyone. Please don't accuse me of that. If this process "works", as you claim it does, why do scientists continue to search for alternative methods of creating embryonic stem cells? Is this because they are ignorant of the innovative work being conducted by ACT?--Nicholas 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that article. I was just referring to the Chung, Klimananskaya, Becker, et al. study for ACT. I realized it's mouse embryo's but it's relevant research that may possibly be applied to human embryos. It looks like I forgot to mention that it was mouse embryo's though. When you deleted my entry, your edit summary just didn't make sense to me in context: "there has been various partially succesfull attempts at trying to create stem cells without destroying the embryo." So, I couldn't understand why you were deleting the information. Now I get it. RJII 15:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Belief vs. Fact

I'm contemplating changing the sentence:

Contrarily, the pro-research lobby argues that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because they believe it has medical potential.

to

Contrarily, the pro-research lobby argues that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because it has medical potential.

There is plainly medical potential in embryonic stem cells. Just like evolution, its medical potential has gone from being a simple opinion/belief to being commonly accepted by people who have an in-depth knowledge in the field. Casting scientific fact as merely an opinion is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. That said, I'd rather not make the change without letting it be discussed on the Talk page. - Pingveno 10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is an acceptable change, it is my understanding that the medical potential of stem cell research is not the center of the controversy, but whether or not that benefit is justified with regard to how cell lines are obtained. The fact that there is medical potential is widely accepted even among people who don't support stem cell research, so your new wording seems better to me. - cohesion★talk 21:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been no objections in the two days I left the subject open for comment. Change made. Please don't revert without first posting on this thread. - Pingveno 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We should not lose sight of the fact that scientists expect eSCR to have medical benefits. This is only an expectation/prediction and it is not a certainty. The future of eSCR has not been determined, and Wikipedia should not portray the innovation trajectory in such a linear fashion. Historians of science will tell us that it is notoriously difficult trying to predict the outcomes of innovation. This is why I had included the words 'they believe. Perhaps we could change the sentence to something like:

"Contrarily, the pro-research lobby argues that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because they anticipate that the resultant technologies will bring considerable medical potential." What do y'all reckon? --Nicholas 10:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We should also not lose sight of the fact that the introduction to this article states "Medical researchers believe that stem cell research has the potential to change the face of human disease".--Nicholas 10:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the word "potential" itself implies it's not a guarantee. It does have "medical potential" whether or not it can be realized is something else. I'm not extremely opposed to your wording, Nicholas, but I think it's probably ok as is too. I would lead slightly more towards, "because it has medical potential". - cohesion★talk 17:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, there is medical potential in rounding up all the homeless people and harvesting their vital organs, so, yeah, I don't have any objection to the phrase "medical potential". 163.192.21.44 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Advanced technique in stem cell

I've removed the following material for the time being:

{ somatic cell nuclear transfer}

The major problem that face cell therapy ,using embryonic stem cell ,is the immune rejection. The immune system is responsible for the defense mechanisms in our body ,against all non-self cells ,or pathogens,and upon transplantation of embryonic stem cell,the immune system will recognize this cell as non-self and it will induce an immune response against this cells. In somatic cell nuclear transfer the DNA,from patient cell will be removed and inserted into the egg , after few days 5 to 7 days, the egg developped to blastocyst , after that we remove the inner cell mass containing the embryonic stem cell that match the immune system of the patient, and no rejection will occur.21:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)H_SONARE

Firstly, if the truth be told, I don't really understand the purpose of this section in the context of the article as a whole - i.e. if this section is necessary, I think it could be better integrated into the body of the text. Second of all, this information relates to embryonic stem cells, it should be documented in that article, not here. Thirdly, and finally, the terminology is problematic. I invite comments from other editors. --Nicholas 09:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I nominated this article for consideration as a Good article. This article seems to be a short introduction to an important topic. (One of the purposes of the GA list is to list helpful short articles.) Moving most of controversial discussion to subarticles seems a good idea here. I made a few minor changes. Especially, I think having "sources" at the top of the "Types" section helps the readability of the article. A few things that could be done to improve the article:

• References for "Cord blood stem cells" and a general potency reference would be nice.
• References in the summary sections about Treatments and Controversy (from the subarticles perhaps) to further general external discussion would help.
• This sentence in the Treatment section is redundant given the following section: "However, there still exists a great deal of social and scientific uncertainty surrounding stem cell research, which will only be overcome by gaining the acceptance of the public and through years of intensive research." The transition between these sections needs work.

--Vir 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone has reverted some minor "clean up/readability" edits that I made to this article. The editor's revert actions don't show up in the article history list. I don't see a comment here. Based on those reverts, I am wondering if this article is stable enough to retain potentially helpful edits. And, I'm having second thoughts at having recently recommended this article for good article status. Can anyone explain the source of this reverting? Thanks, --Vir 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Section order

Hi Vir, I welcome your input. You are correct, for the sake of clarity, the Stem cell sources section (adult, embryonic & cord-blood) should indeed come before the Stem cell potency section. However, in 'the sources' section it now discusses stem cell potency without explaining the terms 'multipotent', 'pluripotent' & 'unipotent', which is confusing and requires mending. Either we rewrite 'the sources' section, removing references to potency, which to my mind is practically difficult, or we revert the section order back to what previously existed, detailing potency before sources, which we both seem to agree is unsatisfactory, what do you reckon? By the way, I've no idea what happened to the history of your edits, I've been away from the internet for the past 6 or 7 days. --Nicholas 10:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I might also add that, in order to improve the article to good article status, the Stem cell controversy section requires more information and references.--Nicholas 10:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to downplay the issue, or to discredit your suggestion for references, but the stem cell controversy exists mainly within the US. It's not a worldwide controversial topic. CMacMillan 19:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi CMacMillan, I'm not sure what gave you that impression since the issue of stem cell research has divided the international community. See Stem cell controversy. Over the few years a world-wide dialogue has taken place tackling SCR and the status of the human embryo. This dialogue revolves around many axis and has occurred in countries such as South Korea, Australia, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and France, to name but a few.--Nicholas 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone reverts the section order (to include 'Stem cell sources' before 'Stem cell potency') can they please address the issues discussed here. --Nicholas 10:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see any edits, I added a new diagram. Is this locked or something, I see nothing to indicate that there is some sort of special status to this article Adenosine | Talk 17:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The section order continues to be a problem. I've sought to maintain the proper order but my edits are continually being reverted. Please will someone address the issues referred to above, which involves either reverted the section order or adapting the language as discussed.--Nicholas 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This wiki aint working

Is anyone else having problems with this article? My edits are vanishing without a trace in the history of the article. Plus, other users edits aren't appearing on my watchlist. This has been happening for the past two weeks, at least. Is anyone else having these same problems? Anyone know what's happening? --Nicholas 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I just made this [22] change, we'll see if it sticks. Ronabop 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make this change [23] and, although this edit appears in the article history, unlike some of my previous efforts, it hasn't saved the changes in the article itself. Should I contact an admin or something?--Nicholas 11:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, for the umpteenth time, I've tried to rearrange the 'Stem cell types' section (for reasons discussed above) and my edits are not appearing in the history of the article, nor in the article itself.--Nicholas 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your edits in the edit history, along with other edits...One of which directly affected *your* edits (see [24], by reversing the explanations of categorization by potency types with categorization by sources. What you are seeing as a bug may be a combination of browser/web caching *and* content disputes. Seeing as how that user [25] is basically a shared school IP, I think it's safe guess that maybe somebody who is still learning (or teaching?) basic biology prefers this article use categorization by source (easier to understand for somebody new to the topic) rather than by potency (which requires learning new terms).... or is such organization contested in this article? Ronabop 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, just read the above section, I guess this has been under discussion before, as one side in the debate prefers to emphasize a "multitude of sources" of stem cells, so ESCR is placed in a context of being one, or a minority source, among many, where another side often emphasizes the uniqueness of totipotent/ESCR research. Rather than a separate-but-equal solution, or first-one-than-the-other, perhaps the sources and definitions can be folded together, so that classifications by both sides in the debate are handled at the same time? For example: "Stem cells are categorized according to both their source and type, as either adult, embryonic or cord blood stem cells, and totipotent, pluripotent, multipotent or unipotent."... Then, as each term is used, it can be explained in context? (Oh, and Unipotency/the intro could use better clarification, as the intro to the article emphasizes differentiation among cell types, not cell renewal). Ronabop 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is needed is just to add a line "Stem cells are categorized according to both their source and potency." immediately after the heading "Stem Cell Types". One should be extremely impatient in order not to read the whole section on types which is less than a page. Alexei Kouprianov 06:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it seems as though I can no longer make edits to this article. Some of my edits are appearing in the history, but not in the article itself, and some edits are not appearing in either context. I don't know what is causing this, but I am absolutely certain that nobody is reverting my edits. Would somebody care to ammend the article according to our discussion? Thanks --Nicholas 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried to rearrange the sections as per this discussion and although my edits have appeared in the history of the article, they do not appear in the most current version of the article and nobody has reverted my contributions. I'm gonna have to get this sorted. I have contributed to this article more than i have contributed to any other article on wikipedia and now (all of a sudden and without explanation) I've been stopped from contributing. I've attempted to edit this article from different computers, on different I.P. addresses and still the problems continue, so it can't be software related. --Nicholas 10:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange, my edits do not appear in the latest version of the article when I am signed in, but they do appear when I sign out.--82.38.204.99 14:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC) --Nicholas 14:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How is the division/type of cell a stem cell becomes regulated by the organism?

I am wondering if anyone can give me some information or point me towards a web page or something. I have been studying the human/animal cell and Wikipedia has been very helpful in explaining DNA replication, chromosomes, cell division, etc. What I would like to know is this: After conception, the cells start dividing. How do the cells know what structures (such as bones, organs, blood vessels, etc.) to create? I know that DNA contains information to replicate various proteins and heredity, but does it also contain information about how to build the new organism? If so, how is it stored? If not, where does this information come from? If anyone has this information or knows where it is, please let me know.

Adult stem cell treatments

RE: "Adult stem cells are used today in treatments for over one hundred diseases and conditions". Can someone provide a reference for this? I doubt that adult stem cell technologies are being that widely used. --Nicholas 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly you could count leukemia (some of). But that doesn't count as "many". Skin in vitro growth and transplants, also.CyrilleDunant 16:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ -- Yeah, it's not "hundreds", it's currently 72. Visual Basic 5.0 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Todays edits

I undid some edits that messed up the headers and removed notes. Maybe I was wrong, in that case, please feel free to revert. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kim, I have reverted the article back to my previous version because the section order was muddled after recent edits (see comments above relating to 'Section Order'). I dunno who changed the section order? But your edits have been lost in the process of my reverting. --Nicholas 09:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not see anything that got lost when I took the diff between my last edit and yours, so it seems it was not an issue. We might be able to clarify some of the aspects the anom's indicated. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kim, it appears as though I've made a mistake. You are correct, the section order did not change inbetween our edits. I'm having problems with this Wiki, as discussed above. Edits to the article do not always appear in my watchlist and when I do visit the article it seems as though I am not viewing the most recent version. I can't explain what is happening? --Nicholas 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the current version of the article contain a section order that reads 'Introduction', 'Stem cell types', 'Potency', 'Treatments' and 'Controversy'? I can't tell because of the problems that we are experiencing with this article. If so, this is problematic because the 'Stem cell types' section discusses stem cell potency without defining the meaning of terms such as 'multipotent', 'pluripotent', etc. The section order should read 'Intro', 'Potency', 'Types', 'Treatments' and 'Controversy', unless someone can adapt the language to encompass the 'potency' definitions within the 'types' section. --Nicholas 19:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is something seriously wrong with editing this page, I tried to rename the bottom end materials so that they were the same as other wikipedia articles, ie. remove end materials and have, see also, notes, ex links (without ==h3== subheads since they blow out the size of the TOC. It went all weird, do other people have probles editing this page?--Peta 00:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

YES. I've been saying this for weeks. This Wiki aint working! --Nicholas 09:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unipotent stem cells

This seems to have come up once or twice before on this talk page. I think we should mention that whether self-renewing cells without multidifferentiative potential are stem cells depends on who you ask :) Peter Znamenskiy 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stem cell potency & this Wiki isn't working

What has happened to this article? The section tackling stem cell potency has been coompletely deleted and nobody has attempted to restore it. Perhaps recent contributors would like to fix this. Otherwise, I'll simply restore the article to the previous version by myself.--Nicholas 10:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm it appears the section disappeared after one of my edits, although I definitely didn't delete it - I was actually editing a different section... I restored it but now the timeline I put together disappeared... I am getting quite fed up with this article. Has a developer looked at it? Peter Z.^Talk 11:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't explain it. How do you contact a developer? Who are the developers? These problems are giving me sleepless nights :(--Nicholas 13:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't access for IRC, see [26], try asking someone for help on the IRC channel mentioned there. Peter Z.^Talk 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reported the problems with this article here bugzilla:6399. I hope they can do something about it. Peter Z.^Talk 01:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, i left a message with these guys, but thus far nobody has responded. Let's see what happens. --Nicholas 09:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, has it been fixed already? --Nicholas 10:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently so, I've tried to sort out the article to reflect the current version and it seems fine. Peter Z.^Talk 10:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

successes

Since this article is discussing research that will hopfully lead to medical break throughs and cures, I think it should have a section listing the successes of Stem Cell research. I came here hoping to find that. I would put it up myself if I knew the information.--Walzmyn 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Walzmyn, if by successes of stem cell reasearch you mean discoveries on the biology stem cells, you should look into embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell articles. If you are after applications for stem cells in treatment of human disease, stem cell treatments provides a messy but broad overview. --Peter Z.^Talk 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Primary tooth stem cells

IMO they do not deserve their own category under sources. I think Adult stem cell would be a more suitable place to mentioned them. --Peter Z.^Talk 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stem cell controversy

Recent edits would seem to reinforce the ‘scientised’ interpretation of the human embryo and embryonic stem cell research. Accordingly, the human embryo is defined as being a ‘blastocyst’ and a ‘microscopic ball of cells’. The human embryo might as well be a random ball of biological matter, according to these edits. Alternatively, it might be argued that the human embryo is a potential person, an identity-in-the-making, a baby to be. By positively embracing the scientised representation, recent edits have failed to do justice to the complexity of these debates. Therefore, I have reverted the language of the section back to a previous version by myself. Issues raised by recent edits (such as the issue of “discarded” IVF embryo’s, hSCR versus eSCR, and hype) are worthy of proper discussion on the Stem cell controversy page. Nicholas 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is why there is a specific article on the controversy. Plus there is not much "scientific" debate on what a blastocyst is. So I believe it is good that this article remains a technical one, but with a small introduction plus link on the debate article.CyrilleDunant 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Potency and sources

Perhaps the article would be more informative if potency and source information were compared. For example, the article doesn't state whether cord blood stem cells are pluripotent. The cord blood article doesn't either, as far as I can tell, and I'll wager that the same is for the other articles. blahpers 04:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Major gap

Although this article does a good job describing stem cell terminology, it seems to be missing a good explanation of what a stem cell actaully is. Something like this wouls improve the article significantly.--Peta 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

embryology

Does anyone happen to know any embryologists? I think Embryology really needs a lot of expert attention. would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [27]Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Regenerative Medicine Journal

Can I add a link to our journal Regenerative Medicine to the 'Peer-reviewed Journals' section. The link is http://www.futuremedicine/loi/rme --Sboisseau 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Chemical mediation=

Perhaps someone can provide a proper title for the topic of "chemical ( or other?) mediation of gentic expression"? a related topic. Wblakesx 01:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

cancer stem cells

the article as written seems to conflate the problem of teratomas (tumours that derive from pluripotent stem cells) and cancer stem cells (which are specific kinds of cancerous cells that act as stem cells for the tumour. The first one is a concern for stem cell based therapies etc, the other is not i.e. the statement "worse yet, some stem cells act as cancer stem cells (CSC)" in juxtaposition to the preceding SC research statement appears to imply CSC are a possible problem with SC treatments, which is not the case.

Also RE potency, it is worth noting that this point ESC are the only solidly established option for pluripotent cell research (although recent reports indicate this may change). This is relevant because if we can get true pluripotent stem cells from adult stem cells, everyone will almost certainly switch over to them, but in the meantime hESC are the only way of carrying out research on this kind of (what will eventually be called) adult stem cell based therapies.

stem-cell brain surgery article

I found an article today on experimental stem cell injection treatment to the brain in China today. Thought some of you might like to read it: http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161726633907&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1014656511815 -- Adeptitus 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't specify whether it's embryonic or adult stem cells. Typical slipshod reporting. Visual Basic 5.0 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

alternative Wiki

Even though this particular page is locked the stem cell page on dKospoedia can be edited: Stem Cell Research

Controversy

I don't understand this section: "There exists a widespread controversy over stem cell research that emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. Opponents of the research argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and tantamount to the instrumentalization of a potential human being." -- Surly the controversy is that destroying an embryo is murder, not some vague muttering about slipperly slopes and cloning. Where did this come from? I don't think anyone's ever carried a picket sign with "instrumentalization" written on it anywhere, for anything, ever. Visual Basic 5.0 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I would follow the Wikipedia practice of "be bold", but on a controversial topic, the opposite approach is necessary. So I'm asking, does anyone have any objection to me changing that sentence to read: "Opponents of the research argue that an embryo is a human being, and to destroy one is murder." Visual Basic 5.0 17:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the objections will be serious. The description of the controversy is an attempt to de-emotionalize a scentific issue with real ethical implications. Using emotionally charged words such as murder explicitly deliver a single POV. Not all opponents consider the destruction of the embryo as the issue, not all supporters are comfortable with the embryo question. And I believe this is trolling but I thought it deserved a response. CMacMillan 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

NO, this isn't trolling. Sheesh! I'm just trying to understand why the sentence says there's a controversy and then devolves into a bunch of gobbledygook. The controversy is that some people consider it to be murder. Maybe there's other problems people have with it, but I always thought the main problem was the "embryo = human" thing. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong about this. As to your second sentence, OF COURSE it's POV. Good grief! How could you POSSIBLY discuss a controversial issue without discussing each side's POV??? You can see where you're contradicting yourself, right? Visual Basic 5.0 20:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear. You have an account that is not quite 1 day old, your first post was to refute a claim in this article citing an agenda-based website as your source, your next post slammed a viable source as "slipshod", and then you follow up with the declaration that you believe the controversy to be murder. Um, and you're suprised that someone might see that as trolling? You're right though... as is your link to wikisucks. I should have assumed good faith, rather than just trying to incite.

I'm not trying to bite you, just the opposite: my goal is to help you see that this is an encyclopedia, not a platform, blog, forum, etc. If you call the research murder why can't someone else call those who oppose the research as heartless, savage or uncaring? Makers of widows and orphans? CMacMillan 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Er... Yeah, I'm coming on a bit strong, aren't I? But, to your point, if one side claimed that the destruction of an embryo was murder and the other side did not make the claim that such an opinion was heartless, then there would be no controversy. The controversy arises because there are two competing points of view, those who claim that the research involves murder and those who claim that the research is not murder but is needed to save lives. These are two very strongly-held points of view, and they are completely at odds with each other. The key to understanding the controversy is in understanding both points of view. If it isn't made clear what each side believes it's fighting for, then the reason for the controversy doesn't make any sense. Visual Basic 5.0 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Visual Basic. I suggest this edit: "Opponents of the research argue that an embryo is a human being with a right to life." This wording would be less inflammatory than "murder" and more true to the debate than "instrumentalization of a human being." For consistency, "right to life" is the wording used in the Stem cell controversy, Abortion Debate, and Capital punishment debate articles.--Herb West 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about stem cells, but I can read pretty well.

And, having a sentence in the paragraph on adult stem cells that has embryonic stem cells as it's subject and focus was out of whack.

So, I changed the independent/dependent clauses around. Maybe one of you white-lab-coat types can see if it is still accurate.