Stem Cell Research

[Sol Rosenberg]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Is talking about wanting to do stem-cell research, etc in the PS or at an interview taboo? I know that there are lots of ethical debates (and laws passed) over stem cell research using embryonic stem cells, but I've not found one person yet in the medical/academic world that doesn't support it.

Or maybe just BS a little and just talk about stem-cell research in general and only talk about embryonic stem-cell research if asked directly in an "ethics" interview question or something like that?

Just wondering what you all think.

Jota

 

[potato51]

Are you interested in doing embryonic stem cell research in particular?

 

[adiddas125]

Only talk about it if you know exactly what you are doing in lab, and why you are doing this research and why it is a justifiable means of studying a biological question of interest. Of course brush up on your ethics, then you should be fine. This is for the interview of course. I am not sure I would put it in my PS. The PS is a section to show the adcom the more softer, touchy, feely side of you. Just like the ES Cell research in your activities section in the amcas.

 

[Law2Doc]

Is talking about wanting to do stem-cell research, etc in the PS or at an interview taboo? I know that there are lots of ethical debates (and laws passed) over stem cell research using embryonic stem cells, but I've not found one person yet in the medical/academic world that doesn't support it.

Or maybe just BS a little and just talk about stem-cell research in general and only talk about embryonic stem-cell research if asked directly in an "ethics" interview question or something like that?

Just wondering what you all think.

Jota

Except perhaps at a few of the religious affiliated med schools, you are going to be hard pressed to come across a physician interviewer who will have a huge problem with your interest in stem cell research.

 

[RxnMan]

I was asked about stem-cell research in my interviews. I said that I had no problem with it per se (every researcher I've met also supports it, Jota) and that it should be going on right now - there's so much to gain! Of course, the problem is where the cells come from. Then I changed topics a bit into abortion and said that I felt the donation of embryos to stem-cell research was good, whereas the selling of embryos has the potential for abuse.

 

[StritchMD2011]

I plan on discussing it a bit, as I worked in a transplant surgery lab which is currently using ES cells. I worked primarily with mouse ES cells last summer, but I'll be working with the human ES cells this summer. I do have to do a bit of reading on the ethical considerations, but I personally am not opposed, and like a previous poster said, there are very few scientists and physicians who completely oppose ES cell research.

Perhaps you could talk about the new methods that are being developed to isolate and culture ES cells without destroying the embryo. There's one method which is similar to PGD (Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis), in which you take a single blastomere from an early blastocyst and culture it with previously isolated ES cells. It doesn't harm the embryo, and you can start a cell line of ES cells using the single isolated cell.

There are a few other methods. There was an interesting article in Nature relatively recently by Alexander Meissner and Rudolf Jaenisch. Take a look at that.

 

[pokeytu]

You will have a hard time finding anyone who is against stem cell research. Where the ethical question comes in is whether or not to use anything but the existing lines.

 

[Law2Doc]

Where the ethical question comes in is whether or not to use anything but the existing lines.

The medical community is heavilly on the same side on this question as well.

 

[MDGuy07]

I plan on discussing it a bit, as I worked in a transplant surgery lab which is currently using ES cells. I worked primarily with mouse ES cells last summer, but I'll be working with the human ES cells this summer. I do have to do a bit of reading on the ethical considerations, but I personally am not opposed, and like a previous poster said, there are very few scientists and physicians who completely oppose ES cell research.

A human being was murdered to get the ES cells. As a physician, you should be opposed to this, because you are to care about all human life.

 

[MDGuy07]

You will have a hard time finding anyone who is against stem cell research. Where the ethical question comes in is whether or not to use anything but the existing lines.

Do you live in the North? Most people in the South oppose it.

 

[TheCybermen]

The issue with stem cells that I truly believe goes overlooked by most aspirants in this field of research is the funding. The NIH will not provide grants for this sort of work if it requires establishing new lines of cells, which, in all seriousness, any promising stem cell work does require. That said, indicating that stem cell research (embryonic stem cell research, that is) is one of your research interests will almost certainly prompt a question from your interviewer, viz., "How are you hoping to provide funding for your work?"

This question will not only feel out how much you know or feel you know about the healthcare and biomedical industry but it will also gauge just how seriously you take your interests.

There are many avenues for embryonic stem cell research funding. All it takes is research and proper networking. Focus on those grant-writing skills in med school and I'm sure you'll do great things.

 

[windzilla]

Do you live in the North? Most people in the South oppose it.

I think wherever you go, an intelligent thoughtfull discussion that shows you have backed up your passion and interest with hard work will impress interviewers. On the other hand some interviewers and ADCOMS might see though you if your just being involved with ESC research because it's the hot new thing.

Just beware that it is an easy slide into questions about abortion, as long as your prepared for that, go for it.

In regards to researchers, most I know think that ESC should be further investigated (some, via NIH grants are investigating them further), but also believe that it has been WAY over rated in the press. sure it has potential (omnipotent-ial but were a long way from exercising controll over it.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I am an opponent of ESC research, but of course don't oppose other kinds of SC research (umbilical, adult).

As most of the medical establishment considers ethics beneath them, they support ESC research. You won't have too many problems in an interview, I would think. But a PS? That's supposed to be more general, almost philosophical, on why you want to go into medicine, not the specific kind of research you're planning on doing.

As for ESCs, I strongly recommend you research what you're doing on your own and don't expect the medical establishment to decide for you what is ethical and what isn't. Doctors are just educated, capable people - that says nothing about their ethical qualities. I would also ask you to actually look at what has been possible with embryonic stem cells - I suspect that in practice they have not been far more useful than adult stem cells, and there is the problem of immunologic host-vs.-graft rejection that hasn't been solved. So, consider carefully whether ESC really hold the promise that various researchers claim they do, and really do look at the evidence they have to present in support of it, not their whining and b!tching about needing more stem cell lines.

Btw, as for the "remove-one-cell-let-the-rest-of-the-embyro-develop" method, that won't work for two reasons. First of all, when you remove one totipotent stem cell from a larger embryo, that single cell constitutes a genetic clone - a twin, and a separate human being. Second, in practice, no IVF parents would allow the doctors to "just remove one cell, for research purposes" off of their developing child.

 

[Lindyhopper]

I am an opponent of ESC research, . .

I often wonder if opposition to ESC research should not also logically require opposition to In vitro fertizition practices? It seems like embryos are regularly created & discarded.

Can one support one & not the other?

 

[StritchMD2011]

A human being was murdered to get the ES cells. As a physician, you should be opposed to this, because you are to care about all human life.

I think that depends alot on when you think life actually begins. That's a huge part of the debate. Heck, one of the Ph.D.'s in my lab is Muslim, and was recently telling me that one of the head officials of the religion recently made a statement that life begins 40 days after conception.

 

[Thundrstorm]

I don't anticipate that it will be a problem, though I think you should focus on what kind of stem cell research interests you. I would think it'd sound a lot better to say something like "I'm interested in researching therapies for neurodegeneration, and in particular, hope to utilize stem cells to that end" as opposed to "I'm interested in stem cell research," which is a very broad statement. In other words "This is a useful tool for X field of study" would sound better (more informed) than "stem cells are cool." I actually expected to be asked about stem cell ethics in an interview (I happen to be opposed to human ESC research) b/c I have a few years of experience with neural stem cells in mice (which, granted, are not germ cells, rather they're from 2-week embryos), but anyway, it never came up.

 

[r0b0tafflicti0n]

A human being was murdered to get the ES cells. As a physician, you should be opposed to this, because you are to care about all human life.

Wow. Good to see that there are future physicians out there who only care about people until they're born.

 

[NonTradMed]

ESC is not as controversial in the science community as it is in the general public. I would suggest putting it in general terms, and if you are asked, perhaps give a non-offensive answer as to why you support it. Interviewers can ask you ethical questions so prepare to answer it, but I don't think it will offend people as much as other hot topics like immigration, euthanasia etc which physicians are more divided on.

 

[zxcv1234]

You don't have to kill an embryo to get stem cells. At an early stage of development, taking some cells will not hurt the fetus.

 

[Lindyhopper]

: Nature. 2006 Apr 27;440(7088):1199-203. Epub 2006 Mar 24. Related Articles, Links


Pluripotency of spermatogonial stem cells from adult mouse testis.

Guan K, Nayernia K, Maier LS, Wagner S, Dressel R, Lee JH, Nolte J, Wolf F, Li M, Engel W, Hasenfuss G.

Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, Heart Center, Georg-August-University of Gottingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Gottingen, Germany.

Embryonic germ cells as well as germline stem cells from neonatal mouse testis are pluripotent and have differentiation potential similar to embryonic stem cells, suggesting that the germline lineage may retain the ability to generate pluripotent cells. However, until now there has been no evidence for the pluripotency and plasticity of adult spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs), which are responsible for maintaining spermatogenesis throughout life in the male. Here we show the isolation of SSCs from adult mouse testis using genetic selection, with a success rate of 27%. These isolated SSCs respond to culture conditions and acquire embryonic stem cell properties. We name these cells multipotent adult germline stem cells (maGSCs). They are able to spontaneously differentiate into derivatives of the three embryonic germ layers in vitro and generate teratomas in immunodeficient mice. When injected into an early blastocyst, SSCs contribute to the development of various organs and show germline transmission. Thus, the capacity to form multipotent cells persists in adult mouse testis. Establishment of human maGSCs from testicular biopsies may allow individual cell-based therapy without the ethical and immunological problems associated with human embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, these cells may provide new opportunities to study genetic diseases in various cell lineages.
-----

Here's the abstract from a recent Nature paper. Spermagonia were transfected into the blastocyst & develope like ESC.

I have no idea what the moral objectionist think of this type of approach.

_____

To OP, I think it is reasonably to discuss your interests. Just don't be "in your face" about it.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I am an opponent of ESC research, but of course don't oppose other kinds of SC research (umbilical, adult).

As most of the medical establishment considers ethics beneath them, they support ESC research. You won't have too many problems in an interview, I would think. But a PS? That's supposed to be more general, almost philosophical, on why you want to go into medicine, not the specific kind of research you're planning on doing.

Thanks for all the insight.

For those that have wondered why I was thinking of talking about this in a PS, here is why. My father was completely paralyzed (neck-down) from a spinal cord injury, which was definitely a factor in my deciding to change my career to medicine. His case is a reminder to me that as far as medicine has come, there are still many areas where new treatments and more research is desperately needed. I was considering MAYBE mentioning my interest in stem-cell research in this context in my PS, but it was probably something that I would talk about in an interview should the topic of my father come up (which it probably will.)

Once again, thanks for the insight.

Jota

 

[Law2Doc]

As most of the medical establishment considers ethics beneath them,

I don't think this is particularly accurate. Most of the medical community takes ethics pretty seriously. It's just that on this issue, the medical community has weighed the eithical considerations and come out on a different side than you. Not agreeing with a certain position after much debate is not the same thing as dismissing ethics as "beneath them".

 

[LADoc00]

Stem cell research will go down as one of biggest scientific hoaxes of all time IMO at least in its current incarnation. So laughable, the whole idea sold to terminal neurodegen patients with no hope is like selling water to the thirsty man in the desert...

 

[lorelei]

Btw, as for the "remove-one-cell-let-the-rest-of-the-embyro-develop" method, that won't work for two reasons. First of all, when you remove one totipotent stem cell from a larger embryo, that single cell constitutes a genetic clone - a twin, and a separate human being.

Can I ask a question about this? I don't want to get into a big stem cell or abortion debate, or disrespect your beliefs at all. But I've been curious about this belief for awhile and I don't know anybody who holds it well enough IRL to ask.

You say that when you remove a totipotent cell from an embryo, that cell is a separate human being. I definitely agree that it's a twin that could eventually develop into a separate human being. What I'm curious about is the switch from one life to two - before you separate a cell, the embryo is one human being, and then afterwards it's two. That's hard for me to get my mind around - where did the second life come from? How can one individual human person split into two? (Or, to take the question from the other side: occasionally embryos combine, creating a mosaic. There were two, now there's one - did one life die? Or disappear? How can two lives literally meld into one?)

Again, I am honestly curious about your beliefs on this and in no way am I trying to convince you or anyone else that your beliefs are wrong; I am just interested in understanding them. And if you don't feel like answering that is totally fine. [In case you want to know: as you might gather from my question, I personally don't believe early embryos are people; I believe personhood is an emergent property that gradually asserts itself as the brain develops.]

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I often wonder if opposition to ESC research should not also logically require opposition to In vitro fertizition practices? It seems like embryos are regularly created & discarded.

Can one support one & not the other?

I don't support IVF the way it's done. I would be OK with it if all fertilized eggs were implanted into the uterus. Otherwise, with freezing or discarding, I oppose it. And I suspect there are others that are consistent on this point, as well.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

: Nature. 2006 Apr 27;440(7088):1199-203. Epub 2006 Mar 24. Related Articles, Links


Pluripotency of spermatogonial stem cells from adult mouse testis.

Guan K, Nayernia K, Maier LS, Wagner S, Dressel R, Lee JH, Nolte J, Wolf F, Li M, Engel W, Hasenfuss G.

Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, Heart Center, Georg-August-University of Gottingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Gottingen, Germany.

Embryonic germ cells as well as germline stem cells from neonatal mouse testis are pluripotent and have differentiation potential similar to embryonic stem cells, suggesting that the germline lineage may retain the ability to generate pluripotent cells. However, until now there has been no evidence for the pluripotency and plasticity of adult spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs), which are responsible for maintaining spermatogenesis throughout life in the male. Here we show the isolation of SSCs from adult mouse testis using genetic selection, with a success rate of 27%. These isolated SSCs respond to culture conditions and acquire embryonic stem cell properties. We name these cells multipotent adult germline stem cells (maGSCs). They are able to spontaneously differentiate into derivatives of the three embryonic germ layers in vitro and generate teratomas in immunodeficient mice. When injected into an early blastocyst, SSCs contribute to the development of various organs and show germline transmission. Thus, the capacity to form multipotent cells persists in adult mouse testis. Establishment of human maGSCs from testicular biopsies may allow individual cell-based therapy without the ethical and immunological problems associated with human embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, these cells may provide new opportunities to study genetic diseases in various cell lineages.
-----

Here's the abstract from a recent Nature paper. Spermagonia were transfected into the blastocyst & develope like ESC.

I have no idea what the moral objectionist think of this type of approach.

_____

To OP, I think it is reasonably to discuss your interests. Just don't be "in your face" about it.

Not many would oppose a method that removes pluripotent SC from an adult. The removal of these cells does not kill the donor and the cells themselves are not individual organisms once separated. In fact, I applaud this development.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Thanks for all the insight.

For those that have wondered why I was thinking of talking about this in a PS, here is why. My father was completely paralyzed (neck-down) from a spinal cord injury, which was definitely a factor in my deciding to change my career to medicine. His case is a reminder to me that as far as medicine has come, there are still many areas where new treatments and more research is desperately needed. I was considering MAYBE mentioning my interest in stem-cell research in this context in my PS, but it was probably something that I would talk about in an interview should the topic of my father come up (which it probably will.)

Once again, thanks for the insight.

Jota

I am very, very sorry about your father. I cannot imagine being in that position, or even being in your position. I would suggest you discuss your father directly rather than the avenue of research you might wish to go into, or deal with your father and with finding a cure for paralysis. Discussing ESC in general is too hip and not enough personal.

 

[thinknofu3]

Ooh, all this is lots of fun. I just wrote a 13 pg (objective, academic, non-inflammatory) paper on how the Christian Conservative movement actively seeks to blur the debate on ESC Research, and how science can "reclaim the debate" in the public. If anybody wants to read it, they can PM me. Have fun debating.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I don't think this is particularly accurate. Most of the medical community takes ethics pretty seriously. It's just that on this issue, the medical community has weighed the eithical considerations and come out on a different side than you. Not agreeing with a certain position after much debate is not the same thing as dismissing ethics as "beneath them".

I've seen the odd bioethics lecture, and it's all BS and fluff. There is no foundation upon which medical ethics can be built, apart from religion. The "do-no-harm" aspect is brushed away because human beings (Terri Schiavo, embryos, mentally ******ed, etc.) are relegated to the realm of "clumps of cells" and "blobs." In other words, to avoid the ethical difficulties of abortion, euthanasia, and ESC, the bioethicists choose to redefine embryos as "blobs" and euthanasia patients as "poor quality of life" (i.e. lives not worth living).

But apart from that, there hasn't even been a debate. There has been no public hearing in congress where doctors and theologians and whoever else is concerned in all this (the regular American, I would guess) discuss the issues. There has really not been a debate. Voices that are grounded in religion have been silenced and sacrificed on the altar of secularism, and as a result we will soon be having mentally ******ed babies killed "to end the suffering," so that organs can be harvested and provided to "lives worth living."

So, I will say that while the doctors put on a face of importance for ethics, they are dismissive of ethics in that they don't take it seriously - when something is problematic for their own personal (liberal) philosophy or when they want to conduct research (perhaps on ESCs), they simply redefine the terms and arrogantly say what is life and what is not life, or what lives are worth living and what lives are not, or just muddle up the issue so that it's up in the air and they can "stay the course," according to their own personal views and morals, in their research and clinical practice.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Ooh, all this is lots of fun. I just wrote a 13 pg (objective, academic, non-inflammatory) paper on how the Christian Conservative movement actively seeks to blur the debate on ESC Research, and how science can "reclaim the debate" in the public. If anybody wants to read it, they can PM me. Have fun debating.

Ooh, a 13 pg strawman trash argument in my particular case, since I think Pat Robertson and the "Christian Conservative movement" are garbage.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Stem cell research will go down as one of biggest scientific hoaxes of all time IMO at least in its current incarnation. So laughable, the whole idea sold to terminal neurodegen patients with no hope is like selling water to the thirsty man in the desert...

Partially correct. Adult SC research may hold promise, ESC is just scientific garbage. They haven't even solved the immunologic organ rejection problem, and now they hope to transfer ESCs from one person to another and have a whole other organ grow?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Can I ask a question about this? I don't want to get into a big stem cell or abortion debate, or disrespect your beliefs at all. But I've been curious about this belief for awhile and I don't know anybody who holds it well enough IRL to ask.

You say that when you remove a totipotent cell from an embryo, that cell is a separate human being. I definitely agree that it's a twin that could eventually develop into a separate human being. What I'm curious about is the switch from one life to two - before you separate a cell, the embryo is one human being, and then afterwards it's two. That's hard for me to get my mind around - where did the second life come from? How can one individual human person split into two? (Or, to take the question from the other side: occasionally embryos combine, creating a mosaic. There were two, now there's one - did one life die? Or disappear? How can two lives literally meld into one?)

Again, I am honestly curious about your beliefs on this and in no way am I trying to convince you or anyone else that your beliefs are wrong; I am just interested in understanding them. And if you don't feel like answering that is totally fine. [In case you want to know: as you might gather from my question, I personally don't believe early embryos are people; I believe personhood is an emergent property that gradually asserts itself as the brain develops.]

No need to be so apologetic. I am not offended, your post isn't offensive at all, and I think it helps if these things are discussed.

I think that whenever you have a body of cells that can independently resolve into an adult human being in the ordinary context of the uterus, that body of cells consitututes Life. This is in contrast to the cells in your adult hand which have life, because these cells, once shorn off your hand, will die. Same goes with sperm and egg cells. But if an embryo splits and you have two independent embryos or even two fused embryos, you have life - identical twins or siamese twins, as the case may be.

If you have two independent embryos fuse, I cannot see how one would not die. Initially, these are two independent human beings, fused, but one of them will die, while the other will live and develop to birth.

 

[Aptamer]

There are a few other methods. There was an interesting article in Nature relatively recently by Alexander Meissner and Rudolf Jaenisch. Take a look at that.

There was another badass paper published in parallel in Nature to this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16227970

 

[noonday]

I think that whenever you have a body of cells that can independently resolve into an adult human being in the ordinary context of the uterus, that body of cells consitututes Life. This is in contrast to the cells in your adult hand which have life, because these cells, once shorn off your hand, will die. Same goes with sperm and egg cells. But if an embryo splits and you have two independent embryos or even two fused embryos, you have life - identical twins or siamese twins, as the case may be.

so, here's my issue. Independent and in the uterus are not equal. they are not the same. the ESC cannot, currently, be developed into a person without the uterus. the uterus, which, incidentally, is an organ that is part of an ACTUAL person. Independent would mean without sucking nutrients and everything needed for growing into a viable singular entity from an acutal, singular individual's body. embryos are parasites. they are not independent. they die without a host, just like a tapeworm. so, why not use them to our benefit? if left in a uterus, they sure as hell use us for their benefit...

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

so, here's my issue. Independent and in the uterus are not equal. they are not the same. the ESC cannot, currently, be developed into a person without the uterus. the uterus, which, incidentally, is an organ that is part of an ACTUAL person. Independent would mean without sucking nutrients and everything needed for growing into a viable singular entity from an acutal, singular individual's body. embryos are parasites. they are not independent. they die without a host, just like a tapeworm. so, why not use them to our benefit? if left in a uterus, they sure as hell use us for their benefit...

You have been debunked in the past w/regard to the alleged parasitism of embryos. Embryos are not parasites. Parasites are parasites. Pregnancy and reproduction is part of the successful biological life cycle of the female. Comparing that to, say, a flea, is disgusting and needs no resolution.

I have news for you: babies aren't "independent" either. If you stick a baby on a table and leave it out for days, it will die of dehydration and exposure. Small children aren't "independent" either - if you leave a toddler without any adult supervision or care, it will almost certainly die.

So, independence is no criterion as to humanity. But let's not veer away from the issue, which is ESCs and a personal statement.

 

[noonday]

You have been debunked in the past w/regard to the alleged parasitism of embryos. Embryos are not parasites. Parasites are parasites. Pregnancy and reproduction is part of the successful biological life cycle of the female. Comparing that to, say, a flea, is disgusting and needs no resolution.

I have news for you: babies aren't "independent" either. If you stick a baby on a table and leave it out for days, it will die of dehydration and exposure. Small children aren't "independent" either - if you leave a toddler without any adult supervision or care, it will almost certainly die.

So, independence is no criterion as to humanity. But let's not veer away from the issue, which is ESCs and a personal statement.

they are, in fact "independent" (babies as compared to embryos). in your own aregument you contrast cells from one's hand against an embryo in that one in not independent because it dies without being attached to your body. BUT embryos die without being attached to a body. they are the same as hand cells in that way, not different. an embryo is different from an infant in that yes, an infant needs care...but ANYONE can provide that care. or any group of people. it is not physically attached to one person's body.

the day they make attachable/detachable uteri that can be passed around so anyone can carry the embryo is the day it will be "independent."

and to bring things back, OP, i totally think the idea of talking more about the personal story with your dad, and how it's impacted your path, is better than talking about the dryness of lab work.

 

[lorelei]

No need to be so apologetic. I am not offended, your post isn't offensive at all, and I think it helps if these things are discussed.

Thanks for answering my question! I tend to be kind of flip in most internet discussions, then I go way over on the other side if I realize I'm discussing something that people probably actually care quite a bit about. Overcompensation R Me!

I think that whenever you have a body of cells that can independently resolve into an adult human being in the ordinary context of the uterus, that body of cells consitututes Life. This is in contrast to the cells in your adult hand which have life, because these cells, once shorn off your hand, will die. Same goes with sperm and egg cells.

I think I get that, more or less. I would call such a body of cells Potential Life personally, though (more on that later).

Another question here: you mentioned that if you removed one cell from an embryo, it would be a clone/twin. However, if you did this, the one cell would not have a zona pellucida, and without that it can't implant and develop in a uterus, even if transferred to one. Does that violate the idea that it has to "independently resolve into an adult human being"? (Currently we can't make artificial zona pellucidae, but it might be possible in the future; would that make any difference?)

But if an embryo splits and you have two independent embryos or even two fused embryos, you have life - identical twins or siamese twins, as the case may be.

This is pretty much my question; I don't understand how something can be a person if it can split and become two people. (Or fuse with another person and become only one person.) My intuitive definition of personhood doesn't match with that; if nothing else, a person has to have individuality. Not genetic individuality, obviously (identical twins are clearly individual persons), but a separate and individual life course.

If you have two independent embryos fuse, I cannot see how one would not die. Initially, these are two independent human beings, fused, but one of them will die, while the other will live and develop to birth.

But what if both the embryos make equal contributions to the new embryo; i.e. the eventual baby is 50% one cell line and 50% the other? Which one dies?

 

[abj]

I think that whenever you have a body of cells that can independently resolve into an adult human being in the ordinary context of the uterus, that body of cells consitututes Life.

How can you apply human rights to something that may become one individual, two individuals, three individuals, or heck decide to not even continue its course of development? ~70% of all fertilized eggs fail to ever reach parturition. Placing "potentiality" on something that cannot be described as an individual is fundamentally flawed. Our entire discourse of ethics, morals, and law is built upon the idea of individuals, that I as a separate human being is supplied rights that cannot/should not be denied by another individual. A group of people are not ethically protected from "murder," rather it is the single, fundamental unit of individuals, me, that recieves protection from the idea of "murder." If you call something consisting of one individual and it suddenly splits into two, the initial "individual" cannot fall under the definition of being an individual and receive the respective rights. You and I cannot suddenly divide ourself into two separate entities, that is the essential difference between you and the early conceptus. In fact, the odds are stacked against the early conceptus, chances are it won't mature into anything further.

 

[abj]

However, if you did this, the one cell would not have a zona pellucida, and without that it can't implant and develop in a uterus, even if transferred to one.

The zona of pellucida is not required for implantation. The zona is only required for sperm binding to the egg, eventually, the cells derived from the fertilized egg (forming the blastocyst) escape the zona, so they can implant into the uterus.

 

[Law2Doc]

So, I will say that while the doctors put on a face of importance for ethics, they are dismissive of ethics in that they don't take it seriously - when something is problematic for their own personal (liberal) philosophy or when they want to conduct research (perhaps on ESCs), they simply redefine the terms and arrogantly say what is life and what is not life, or what lives are worth living and what lives are not, or just muddle up the issue so that it's up in the air and they can "stay the course," according to their own personal views and morals, in their research and clinical practice.

I actually think that you are mistakenly assuming what the level of debate has been. Most of these hot issues have been significantly discussed in medical arenas, not to mention in med schools. All sides are aired, and it is not token consideration or putting on a face. But the conclusions on stem cell issues universally come out for the research. You don't have to like the conclusion, but it's not accurate to dismiss it as arrogance or due to a lack of debate. And the medical opinion has less to do with the research specific individuals want to do (the clinicians come out the same way for the most part), and more to do with the potential benefit -- countless lives that can perhaps be saved and improved.
It is sort of a moot point anyhow -- even while the US refrains from additional strain research, it is happening at countless other parts of the globe. The science will come to fruition eventually, and we will be unable not to partake. All we are managing to do is ensure that the US loses out in any future market for resultant treatments.

 

[lorelei]

The zona of pellucida is not required for implantation. The zona is only required for sperm binding to the egg, eventually, the cells derived from the fertilized egg (forming the blastocyst) escape the zona, so they can implant into the uterus.

My understanding is that a few-celled embryo doesn't survive without the zona pellucida to hold it together. In the case we're talking about, you'd have a single cell which would then have to divide and grow into a blastocyst before implantation, and I think the ZP is necessary for at least part of this process. HOWEVER, in checking that I found that these days it is apparently not a problem to grow a ZP-free zygote in vitro to the blastocyst stage, at which point it can successfully implant. So the point is moot. Ignore that question!

 

[LJDHC05]

To the OP: I recommend avoiding taboo subjects unless your interviewer brings them up. I wouldn't recommend mentioning stem cells at Georgetown in an interview either.

I have a problem with the whole ESC debate.

"Adult" stem cells are defined as something that is not derived from an embryo, but from anything that is at a developmental stage beyond that. This includes fetal stem cells through the cells found in some dude's nuts. It's difficult to define biologically, scientifically, morally and ethically what makes a stem cell a stem cell. It is incredibly difficult to keep adult stem cells as stem cells. It is simply not their "natural" state. Rather, they prefer to differentiate and change into their adult form. We, as scientists, have to immortalize these line of stem cells (to preserve their "stemness" and make them divide) and keep them pure.

LIFE, in the proper cellular biology definition, is constitued of a membrane enclosed structure which is able to reproduce copies of itself. Outside of that cold biological definition of life, you enter into the realm of pure nameology and a philosophical discussion of what constitutes a human life. Once you leave the world of accepted definitions, there is no longer an objective right and wrong answer, just varying degrees of opinion biased by a few thousand years of human religion, which millions have died for, and philosophy.

My problem comes in the myopic views of the extremists on both sides and a general smear campaign that they throw into the media spotlight. On one side, you have a group of people who believe that the word of the Bible is the absolute truth. You have the other side of the matter who believes that they are in search of the absolute truth through science. Nobody's right and nobody's wrong and essentially we're marred somewhere inbetween the two views.

As future physicians, we wiegh the two sides. You can either protect the sanctity of life by lobbying against ESC's, but you hamstring a number of fields of research that have the potential to eradicate a host of diseases. And vice versa. So basically we're placed in a damned if you do, damned if you dont spiral of vicious arguements that get everyone nowhere.

This is not a black and white issue, folks, and not the time for black and white answers. I'm a catholic and a lab tech in an adult stem cell lab, and I'm torn between the two sides constantly. IMO I think that the field should be allowed to advance in a controlled manner until such a time that the use of a ESC line can be shown to alleviate a disease in an animal model, without the plague of tumors and cancer that currently exist. I think that ESC work should be performed under a controlled NIH controlled monitoring/lisencing program to keep the number of ESC labs under control and keep them as ethical as humanly possible.

 

[Law2Doc]

I think that ESC work should be performed under a controlled NIH controlled monitoring/lisencing program to keep the number of ESC labs under control and keep them as ethical as humanly possible.

Given the current administrative policy, the vast majority of stem cell work will be done outside of the US and the NIH will have no say over how the work is done. All the US is managing to do is not have a role or a say in the advancement of this field, and box itself out of any market potential.

 

[SpeakLittleB]

i really support stem cell research, and i think ESC are the most beneficial. i think i would stick to how i feel at the interview, because if the medical school i'm interviewing at is opposed, i just wouldn't want to go to that school. (i'm applying mstp, and this is what i want to do, so i guess it's extra impt that the school is in favor.)

of course, there are considerations, like whether the embryos were sold or donated... plus new research on trying to reprogram cells to embryonic state to try to avoid some of these ethical issues... so these are probably topics i'd mention

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

they are, in fact "independent" (babies as compared to embryos). in your own aregument you contrast cells from one's hand against an embryo in that one in not independent because it dies without being attached to your body. BUT embryos die without being attached to a body. they are the same as hand cells in that way, not different. an embryo is different from an infant in that yes, an infant needs care...but ANYONE can provide that care. or any group of people. it is not physically attached to one person's body.

the day they make attachable/detachable uteri that can be passed around so anyone can carry the embryo is the day it will be "independent."

and to bring things back, OP, i totally think the idea of talking more about the personal story with your dad, and how it's impacted your path, is better than talking about the dryness of lab work.

This argument lacks any sort of rigor. Why would dependence on one inidivual differ from dependence on any other? In that case, the embryo would be just as "independent" as the baby, since you can theoretically implant it into any sexually mature human female prepared for the implantation. I don't buy the independence argument as it has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is alive or not and whether it should be protected or not. To take a relevant example - the OP's father is hardly "independent" - as a quadriplegic, he relies on other people, machines, etc. to survive - is he not just as fully human as you and I? Or are we at the level of animals, if you're not fit, you don't deserve to live?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I actually think that you are mistakenly assuming what the level of debate has been. Most of these hot issues have been significantly discussed in medical arenas, not to mention in med schools. All sides are aired, and it is not token consideration or putting on a face. But the conclusions on stem cell issues universally come out for the research. You don't have to like the conclusion, but it's not accurate to dismiss it as arrogance or due to a lack of debate. And the medical opinion has less to do with the research specific individuals want to do (the clinicians come out the same way for the most part), and more to do with the potential benefit -- countless lives that can perhaps be saved and improved.
It is sort of a moot point anyhow -- even while the US refrains from additional strain research, it is happening at countless other parts of the globe. The science will come to fruition eventually, and we will be unable not to partake. All we are managing to do is ensure that the US loses out in any future market for resultant treatments.

Potential benefits must be weighed against potential costs. We see this with abortion, euthanasia, ESC, pulling the plug, etc. ESC has become very "hot" rather recently and I think I would have been aware of ethical "debate" on the issue. Usually, the "debaters" are secular or belong to a "mild" religious following, usually Reform Jewish, Methodist, Episcopalian, and the like. Perspectives that would oppose ESC are simply not even voiced, or are dismissed as unscientific and unworthy of consideration if voiced.

The "life saving benefit" is simply not there - ESC transfer causes tumors and what's more there's always the risk of host-vs.-graft rejection. I don't see why work hasn't been done on auto adult stem cells, which seems to me to be the most promising path. With the discovery of adult neural stem cells, I would think it would be better to attempt to manipulate these cells noninvasively to begin proliferating in the site of spinal chord injury, rather than transfering totipotent allo cells that would be much harder to differentiate and protect from immune attack. It just makes no sense.

 

[Law2Doc]

ESC has become very "hot" rather recently and I think I would have been aware of ethical "debate" on the issue.

That you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist. 🙄

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Thanks for answering my question! I tend to be kind of flip in most internet discussions, then I go way over on the other side if I realize I'm discussing something that people probably actually care quite a bit about. Overcompensation R Me!



I think I get that, more or less. I would call such a body of cells Potential Life personally, though (more on that later).

Another question here: you mentioned that if you removed one cell from an embryo, it would be a clone/twin. However, if you did this, the one cell would not have a zona pellucida, and without that it can't implant and develop in a uterus, even if transferred to one. Does that violate the idea that it has to "independently resolve into an adult human being"? (Currently we can't make artificial zona pellucidae, but it might be possible in the future; would that make any difference?)



This is pretty much my question; I don't understand how something can be a person if it can split and become two people. (Or fuse with another person and become only one person.) My intuitive definition of personhood doesn't match with that; if nothing else, a person has to have individuality. Not genetic individuality, obviously (identical twins are clearly individual persons), but a separate and individual life course.



But what if both the embryos make equal contributions to the new embryo; i.e. the eventual baby is 50% one cell line and 50% the other? Which one dies?

As for becoming two people, I think that's not such a difficult matter. As the splitting occurs and one body of cells that was once part of one whole becomes a separate entity that is alive, multiplying, and fully capable of developing into a separate human individual - I would call that a separate human being. If you want to say that the soul enters at this point of division, that's fine.

As for the melding, that's a bit more complicated, but I suspect that you don't have 50-50 melds. I suspect that once you have a genetically distinct tissue meld onto another, one resigns (i.e. dies) and becomes one of those "twin embryos" people have in their ovary or somewhere embedded in the body, while the other continues to develop to a baby.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

That you are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist. 🙄

Where, for example? Care to post some links of prominent debates at, say, prominent medical schools, NIH symposia, the US Congress?

 

[Law2Doc]

Where, for example? Care to post some links of prominent debates at, say, prominent medical schools, NIH symposia, the US Congress?

Just go to Google, and type "stem cell symposium medicine ethics". You will get better than a million hits. Happy reading.