Stem Cell Research and the Media

[tinpra]

So I ran across this article on MSN last month. If you don't feel like clicking the link, it's about a breakthrough in stem cell research in which "skin cells [were] made to mimic stem cells." As someone who's against embryonic stem cell research, I have no problem with it. According to the article it's still risky and experimental business and isn't up to use in treating disease in humans yet.

What annoyed and bothered me about the article is that there is absolutely no mention of adult stem cell research. It makes it seem like until the discovery they made was found there was no alternative to something with the potential of embryonic stem cell research. As if there were no other kind of stem cell research. It's not like there wasn't room for it. It's an electronic article! It can be as long or short as they want. And why not mention adult stem cells? The research for it has proved not only viable but has actually helped people. So why not do it? Because it's not as "interesting" as embryonic stem cells.

I understand that adult stem cells are harder to obtain than embryonic stem cells, and that it's a more invasive process (b/c it seems to generally come from bone marrow, ouch), but it's still doable. And bone marrow is not the only place you can find stem cells. The whole point is, unless you get an article that is actually dealing with adult stem cells, like this one, the media tends not to mention adult stem cell research at all. They don't tell you whether or what kind of research and research funds are being put into it. All these claims about how right-wingers are so narrow-minded and won't even consider the benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and yet the supposed "liberal" media is only showing you one option as well.

And that's my...gripe.

Comments

[randomposting.livejournal.com]

What do you feel about the embryos that would just be discarded no matter what, from invitro fertilization clinics, etc?

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

That's a great question, particularly since I hadn't thought about it. My first reaction is I don't know, but the more I ponder it the more I'm against it. The basis of my issue with embryonic stem cell research is probably the basis of anyone who's anti -- I believe that an individual's life starts at the moment of fertilization. An egg and a sperm, as separate entities, belong to the woman and the man. An embryo is neither egg nor sperm and belongs to itself. To destroy an embryo is to destroy an individual.

That of course brings up the larger question of what to do with viable in vitro fertilized eggs. I had thought that all viable eggs were placed in the mother b/c there's no way of knowing whether they will all take. Is that not true?

[jaguarx13.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm a more up on the whole stem cell thing because my father had an autogolous stem cell transplant (using his own cells) as part of the chemotherapy he underwent in a clinical trial for mantle cell lymphoma. I read just about everything about it that comes out on the net, in magazines and scientific journals, so I think I'm more aware of the adult research than the average person, because it had a personal impact on me. Sometimes, I think the various articles focus on the embryonic research and forget to mention other adult findings because everyone knows about the former rather than the latter, and because it's the standard the adult research has to match. At least the researcher in that article actually talks about the ethics of his work, which to me is both surprising and refreshing. Too bad it's buried in the last two paragraphs.

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

And it seems like you have to be someone who's personally interested in stem cell stuff to know any of the various options out there, controversial, ethical or no. Which I'm sure is true of many things, particularly things having to do with medicine and medical science. I also realize I'm probably asking a lot of the media, but I feel like so many people get all their knowledge and base so many of their opinions on what they see in the media that the media ought to be more responsible. But responsibility doesn't necessarily sell papers or generate clicks. And I guess I can't have everything all at once? *sigh* A coworker of mine always said I think too hard.

I missed you last night, btw.

[jaguarx13.livejournal.com]

Sorry bebe - we had a guest over, so I was offline all day. *hugs*

I think the media should be telling us everything, but sadly, we only get to hear about what they want us to. I do more research on all things medical because I used to be a massage therapist, and I'm a medical herbalist. I quit doing it because I felt I needed more education - like a degree in naturopathic medicine, which I still may do one day. But I read all kinds of medical things voraciously, lol.

[jaguarx13.livejournal.com]

No, they aren't. The majority of them are kept in cryogenic storage indefinitely.

[randomposting.livejournal.com]

Nope. They usually do a whole bunch at one time, so that if the original fertilization doesn't work that they famly can come back for more. That's what they did with my cousin anyway, and from what I've read... so at some invitro centers, there are a whole lots of embryo' that once the Mother s impregnated and carries a healthy baby, they dn't need anymore if they only want one child so they sign off to have them destroyed. Or other clinics take more then they need just to make surethere' successful fertilization, and sometimes they take too many. I'm just curious, in the situation where those embryonic cells are going to be destroyed anyway, if they shouldn't be used for the greater good, vs. ust being destroyed.

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

I thought it was something like that.

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

I'm decidedly against destroying embryos, period. What else to do with them, other than the indefinite cryogenic storage that Jag mentioned, I don't know. Perhaps offer the original parents the option to donate their fertilized embryos to other couples who want to get pregnant but can't? Although I can see and understand people getting really techy about that on both sides.

[randomposting.livejournal.com]

I think anyone that would be going for invitro would be using their own embryos, and wouldn't want someone elses. It's not really like adoption, in that way, I don't think.

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

Apparently couples using in vitro do have the option to freeze, destroy or donate their extra eggs. It's not called adopting. Actually I have no idea what it's called. I also have no idea re whether it's treated like adoption.

Anywho, I suppose anyone who has an intense desire to have children, and particularly to give birth to their own child, would seek out any possible option. It depends on what you, as a couple, really, really want. A friend of mine is personally anti-in vitro and pro-regular adoption. You sister was pro-in vitro. Some third person out there is pro-in vitro but doesn't have viable embryos and may be pro-other-people's-embryos. But that's the option that best suits my viewpoints.

[randomposting.livejournal.com]

*nod* I was just curious on where you stood.

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

Well I'm glad you brought it up since I didn't know where I stood either :)

[randomposting.livejournal.com]

Cool. :)