Agreed Aedín.

Hi Aedín,
Thanks for the comment – I had tried to outline the differences between embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research in the text before the question, but I’ve now changed the question to include “embryonic” to make things a bit clearer.
Hopefully that helps,
Jennifer

@Jennifer: Why start off a poll on embryonic stem cell research with a piece about a transplant grown from adult stem cells and ask an ambiguous question given the there are two distinct types of research?

Hi Frank – I’ve replied to your question below, but basically the poll is based on a story in the news on any given day. Although the case mentioned is not based on embryonic research it is a form of stem cell research – and we wanted to create a poll on the issue. Based on feedback (above) I revised the original question to specifically relate to embryonic research because it ensures a clear question is being asked.
(I mention in the article that the case involving the 10-year-old girl involved adult cells.)

Siobhan i’ve been through IVF and know a little bit about it. There is no law that says unused embryos have to be destroyed. However once the owners have no further use i.e. they have the family they want and don’t want to pay to continue frozen storage, they are eventually allowed thaw out in an unsupportive environment.

So they are not actively destroyed but not nurtured when they thaw which leads to their destruction. A bit like non intervention in a dying patient.

And from what I recollect they are never disguarded because of no laws or government policy whatsoever in this area. TDs are afraid of the youf defense an ohter spuccers….

Gavin, I apologise if I am incorrect on the procedures following IVF in Ireland, I am basing this on my knowledge of the UK IVF system where they are in fact required by law to destroy the embryos within 10 years.

Why would 3 people dislike this comment? The mind boggles.

Shane i totally agree with you Stem cells are being tested at the moment for a break through in R.P.Just wondering did you sign up with fighting blindness to get your genes tested to see what type of R.P you have.I know they were looking for 3000 people with eye defects to take part in the gentic testing

Priests and Nuns.

bunch of pagans…

Perhaps (id love to see the nut jobs holding that sign on Dame st “Wanking is murder”

It sure is when you’ve has 6 pints!

Youth defence….yeah…but the religious crew are never far away pushing the buttons. Remember the Pro life crew in America Shooting dead abortion clinic staff? Pro life protestors killing people…..they are all insane! Religion creates a moral vacuum that psychopaths sit inside comfortably. Wonder how many people now have HIV due to the churches stance on condoms?

Martin, Didn’t you know that not only wanking is murder, thinking about having one is conspiracy to murder. Plus wearing tight jeans is murder too and thinking of wearing tight jeans is ………well you can fill in the blanks. Contracting diseases such as mumps in teenage years can lead to sterility which can lead to a manslaughter charge due to negligence in not being vaccinated against the parents of the infected person. It’s a never ending struggle for the pro lifers out there. You’d have to feel sorry for them. Endometriosis can lead to further charges against the evil women who have it. It goes on and on and on………..

Martin. I said fill in the blanks in last reply but never shoot them or it’s jail for you me laddie.

Hi Doc,

Embryonic stem cells are derived when a human embryo is taken apart. This means that the embryo’s human life is ended and it’s journey as a human being is brought to a premature end.

Regarding your comments on the Catholic Church – well, I’m not sure why you have brought the Church into the debate. Opposite to embryonic stem cell research is based in an interest in protecting unborn human life, which falls within the realm of human rights, not Church teaching.

Hi Shane, the question was changed just a few minutes after it was first published, so not many people had answered. The poll, in general, gives more of a broad idea of people’s feeling on an issue rather than being strictly representative (as an open, internet poll it can’t be as it’s based simply on whoever is visiting the site that day). It’s hoped that the question raises topical issues and generates discussion.
Questions are not usually altered but, in the interests of clarity, I felt this one should be tweaked.

There had been over 200 answers when I raised my concerns, and the poll was changed after that.

In fairness to the drastic difference between adult stem cell research (has been successful in the treatment of many diseases eg, bone marrow transplant; does not damage the donor), and embryonic stem cell research (has yet to contribute to a cure to any illesses; ends the life of the human embryo), it was essential that the distinction between the two should have been clearly set out in the question.

When that was not made clear, the only way to rectify such a glaring mistake was to re-word the question and begin the poll from scratch. As it stands, the results of this poll are unreliable.

@Eoin,

This is a question of medical ethics, not religious beliefs.

I don’t think anybody opposes stem cell research. We fully support the use of adult stem cells in treating medical conditions and welcome the huge advances in this field.

Embryonic stem cell research results in the destruction of a living human embryo. We are opposed to that aspect of stem cell research on those grounds.

You can’t escape from the fact that embryonic stem cell research has produced zero cures, despite the huge financial and ideological push behind it. Only adult stem cells have yielded any therapies (more than 70 at the last count), whereas embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single therapy/cure!

It is unethical, costly and useless.

In some cases the difference you have specified is not in fact a difference. Your definition of ethics depends on whether or not you have a child dying in hospital of a disease this might help cure. Moralistic based ethics can be just as useless as religion in times like these because they are both beliefs. Most people will say they are “ethical” they “believe” they are. I totally agree that national medical agreement on ethics is essential on this based on fact, empirical evidence and much further careful and unbiased research. To that end we don’t need peoples opinions, churched opinions, governments opinions. We just need science and balanced argument. If we quit when we fail the first few times bugger all will be achieved. However I don’t think I’ll foist my ethical beliefs to parents who have to suffer what could eventually be curable disease if we have the courage to continue with this all be it carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research results in the destruction of a living human embryo.

No, it does not.
Embryonic stem cell research uses human embryonic tissue which is scheduled to be destroyed. The destruction of the embryos is going to happen whether they are used in research or not; the research itself is not the cause of the destruction. There isn’t a board of ethics in any research department anywhere (except maybe in China) which would sanction the purposeful destruction of embryos for an experiment.

@Evelyn, the reason why embryonic stem cell research has not produced any therapies yet is because there frankly isn’t a huge financial an ideological push behind it. In fact quite the opposite is true, many countries which would normally be at the forefront of scientific research, such as America or Germany or France have quite strict restrictions on kind of funding they can receive. For instance during the Bush administration, labs which conducted any research beyond a set of very old and mostly useless cell lines were banned from receiving any federal funding, and I mean the whole lab was banned, not just the subset that might be doing the specific research. There were also restrictions during the Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama administration. Many countries just ban it outright.

So, unsurprisingly if you practically ban people from researching it, then nobody discovers anything. That being said the potential of embryonic stem cell treatments is absolutely staggering and completely undeniable.

There have also been potentially viable efforts to find scientific solutions to peoples religious objections, such as turning adult stem cells pluripotent, which will hopefully resolve the whole debate. Although this was research that was only made possible through embryonic stem cell research, albeit in mice.

@Mark -

Perhaps you have put your finger on the underlying reason why we should oppose embryonic stem cell research – because it is carried out on embryos which are scheduled to be destroyed.

This is true, and they are words which none of us should take lightly. The embryo is human life at its earliest, most vulnerable stage. If we lose respect for that life at this stage, then we will have crossed a line in the sand – one which says that certain human lives deserve less protection than others.

Must has been said lately of China’s disgraceful attitude to human rights – the abuses of which are most abundantly seen in the forced abortions of the One Child Policy. We can all agree that a civilised society is one that acts to preserve life, to protect it from unjust attack.

No civilised society would sanction an act that involved taking certain body parts from an unwilling human being in order to carry out experimentation that may cure another human being. Yet this is what we are talking about when we speak about embryonic stem cell research.

The embryo is not a means to an end. It is an individual human life, and deserves protection just like any other.

Of course, we all want to find cures for the diseases that afflict mankind. But we need to find cures that we can all live with. The way forward in this area is through adult stem cell research – it has already contributed to a number of cures and does not carry with it any ethical concerns but safeguards Life at every stage.

It’s a *potential* human life, and, as anyone who has spent time trying to conceive will tell you, it’s one tiny step on the way to a human baby. The human body fails to bring fertilized eggs/embryos to their “full potential” ALL THE TIME. That late period? Potential human life that didn’t implant, down the drain, right there. Not to mention the fact that miscarriages are extremely common in the first couple of months of pregnancy even if implantation takes place – I’ve had one myself.

As I said below, if I had had to have IVF I would have been delighted for any surplus embryos to be used to help others.

Also, ooh, the slippery slope/line in the sand argument. How original. (“If we use embryonic stem cells, next we’ll be killing five year olds in the street with hammers for their corneas! And inventing reality TV shows where we inventively murder the elderly!”)

@Lisa –

The embryo is not “potential human life”. Something is either a life or it is not. It cannot be somewhere in between. The embryo already has all of the genetic DNA that it will have during its lifetime – this DNA is present from conception. The only other thing that is needed is time to allow the embryo to grow and develop so that it can advance to the next stage of its development – much like a toddler is allowed time to grow into a child, then a teenager, adult and so on. Life is a continuum and the embryo is simply the first stage of the human journey which begins at conception and ends at natural death. No-one should have the right to interfere with that journey and end it, regardless of the reason.

I’m sorry to hear that you have experienced the sadness of miscarriage, but I’m not sure how the incidence of miscarriages contribute to an argument in favour of embryonic stem cell research. Miscarriages are an act of nature – in most cases the embryo is too weak to sustain the full nine months in the womb. There is no intervention by any person intending to bring an end to that life – quite the contrary as many women will take action eg continual bedrest, if they feel they might be at risk of miscarriage.

Your comments regarding the “slippery slope” argument are a little facetious to be honest. We live in a society where human life is already treated very poorly in too many cases. On another page of this website The Journal has reported on the disgraceful case of a woman who was forcibly aborted in China at seven months – an extreme case of disrespect for all lives concerned – the woman herself, her unborn child, and the father of her child plus her distraught extended family.

We need to become more aware as a society of the value of human life, regardless of its age, ability or social status. The embryo is something so tiny that it cannot be seen by the naked eye, but this does not limit its humanity, or take away from the fact that it is part of the same continuum of life and as such is deserving of the same protection as you or me.

Sinead, even as an anti-abortion argument that’s a bit daft (if you were never born you wouldn’t be alive! if you died last week you wouldn’t be here today! well, yes…) and it doesn’t make any sense in the context of this discussion. Embryonic stem cells for research (which as John Horan has pointed out upthread is currently massively restricted) come from surplus embryos from IVF cycles. They’re not the results of terminations, they’re the (ex-utero) equivalent of a fertilized egg that didn’t implant. If I had had to go through IVF I would be delighted if surplus embryos could be used to possibly develop new medical treatments etc.

Though I’m sure some people (possibly yourself included) might argue that the truly pro-life wouldn’t have IVF because it might result in excess embryos, or that if you’re having IVF you should commit yourself to possibly having seven children, but … yeah.

Agreed! They’ve changed it now to embryonic research.

I agree with what you’ve said here. I don’t think we should rush into embryonic research simply because USA and UK are at it.

Proper discussion needed and people need to get the facts before deciding. Apart from being ethically questionable, Embryonic cells are actually incredibly unreliable and unpredictable. Funding should be pumped into adult research instead, as this has no ethical drawbacks and has been more successful too.

Could someone explain the ethical drawbacks to me in a way that doesn’t ignore the point that those embryonic cells are to be destroyed in any event?

Surely if the choice is between the incinerator with the rest of the medical waste; or helping to develop treatments that may save lives, it’s less ethical to choose the former?

As someone who has suffered partial paralysis due to spinal cord injury you cannot fathom what it feels like to watch/listen to folks sitting on their luxurious throne of temperamental decision about (probably religious) ethical issues about stem cells that will not be used anyway to treat and progress with previously considered no-hope conditions. Please, leave the high and mighty ethical garbage to the American bible belt.

Well said, Keith.

No mark, they can’t.

EVElyn, presumably Ethical==Catholic?

@William and @Keith I’m neither religious nor a Catholic.

@Mark The crux of the issue is that we disagree with human embryos being destroyed. Whether that’s through research on the embryos or discarding of them – the method employed doesn’t change the basic fact that the human embryo is destroyed in the process.

Adult stem cell research has produced 70+ therapies and, as the cells come from an adult source, often the patient’s own body, there is no destruction of embryos involved and rejection is infrequent.

Embryonic stem cell research hasn’t produced a single therapy for patients. Not one. Zilch.

@Keith I think it’s cruel and misleading for media and embryonic stem cell proponents to tell patients and their families that cures would be just around the corner, only depending on funding for embryonic stem cell research when embryonic stem cell research hasn’t produced a single clinical application and it is, infact adult stem cell research where the 70+ therapies are coming from.

Even leaving aside the ethics of destroying human embryos for anyone who doesn’t acknowledge a right to life:
- adult stem cell research has been much more successful in developing therapies
- adult stem cell therapies are being used to treat patients right now and are delivering real hope to patients
- when the cells come from the patients own body in adult stem cell therapies, rejection is infrequent

This is not a hypothetical — these are treatments for people who have very serious conditions. Money diverted to embryonic stem cell research is money which could have been spent on developing actual treatments for patients.

@ Frances. Adult stem cells have undergone differentiation into different tissue types. Once a cell is of a tissue type, it grows into that type only. Therefore nerve cells become only nerve cells and not muscle cells.Therefore adult stem cells are more difficult to work with in the lab. Other than that calls are cells.

Actually, therapies have only come from adult stem cells – over 70 – while embryonic has produced none.

Evelyn, if you rule that you can only work with stem cells made from adult cells, you’re only going to get treatments from those stem cells.

Mind you, I’d want to check the research archives before agreeing with your assertion at all.

Are embryonic cells created for research or do they use IVF leftovers? I mean, if you’re ideologically consistent in this, you should oppose IVF, as an additional amount of embryos will be created and eventually destroyed.

Isn’t it the case that the embryonic stem cells for stem cell research come from surplus from IVF that would otherwise not be implanted? I don’t think anyone’s suggesting creating embryos purely for research purposes.

Why should embryos not be created just for embryonic stem cell research?

Frank, there isn’t a board of ethics in any research department anywhere in the world who would sanction the creation of human embryos purely for research, or which would permit human embryos to be destroyed for the purposes of research (you may not have noticed it, but biologists have consider the ethics of an experiment long before the State or the Church get round to it). Research is done on embryos which are already slated to be destroyed. Whether the research happens or not, those embryos are going to be destroyed. To prevent their use in medical research is deeply unethical.

How do you kill an embryo? It’s not developed yet therefore not alive.

We will agree to differ.

Hi Frank,
The article states that the case mentioned involved adult stem cells.
The reason the case is mentioned is because the daily poll is based on a topical issue and this story, which relates to stem cell research, was in the news today. I’ve tried to clarify the differences between the two types of research but had to make the question posed a little clearer – because an open question about stem cell research doesn’t properly reflect the different types that exist and could lead to confusion (a bit of a tricky situation!)
The poll itself isn’t scientific – the idea behind it is to encourage discussion between users on different issues.
Hope that helps,
Jennifer

Personally I think it is quite misleading to start the article with a piece about adult stem cells.

@Frank. Sorry if you find it misleading. The idea is to mention something significant and topical happening in the world of stem cell research, note differences between embryonic and adult stem cell research, and then pose a clear question. (The original question was “do you support stem cell research?” but users pointed out that this could be confusing because of the different types of research that exist.)

We can’t agree to differ Frank, you’re using the wrong word. An embryo is not a fetus, any more than a truck is a motorcycle. They are completely different things biologically.

It’s odd that this article begins with a success story in stem cell therapy using adult stem cells, then asks for a vote on support of embryonic stem cell research.

Many articles recently have adopted this approach of tacking on a success story about adult stem cell therapies to the issue of embryonic stem cell therapies, implying that more therapies are just around the corner if only we would legislate. It’s cruel and misleading to keep building false hope in patients and their families.

The media needs to be very clear in regards to differentiating between adult and embryonic stem cell research. Readers have a right to know that adult stem cell therapy is the one producing therapies and making headway – embryonic stem cell research hasn’t produced a single clinical application.

@Jennifer: And conveniently the case you pick for a topical happening involves an emotive case of a ten year old girl who received adult stem cells and not embryonic ones.

Frank, if you’re going to rule out considering cases where children benefit from medical research on the grounds that it’s emotive, I think we’re going to also have to rule out any and all concerns with a religious basis as well. If we can’t have emotive cases and must be completely rational, well, that kindof puts religion out to go play in the garden while the grown-ups talk, now doesn’t it?

If she’s not an adult, but received tissues grown from her own stem cells, did she get really get ‘adult’ stem cells?

I am of course being entirely facetious. I understand intimately the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells.

While I acknowledge an embryo as a seperate organism from it’s parent, I don’t understand why using tissue from an embryo which is to be destroyed/’allowed to die’ anyway is ethically wrong. Saying it’s killing embryo’s is like saying heart transplants kill the donors: It’s technically true, but not doing it isn’t going to save them, and doing it may save someone else.