TAG of the Week:
Future of stem cell therapy.
(This article was suggested by a fellow HS320 student.)
Recently, we learned the different types of stem cells, and their applications in treatment. Here is a research study that indicates the possibility of growing bones from your stem cells.
Early this year 2013, the courts revisited the issues on embroynic stem cells.
The use of iPS cells "could solve the controversary" :
Understanding the potential use of stem cells is critical and the acknowledgement of possible harm and misuse are equally important.
Do you agree or disagree with the court decision? Why? What implications can the court decision have on the bone regeneration? What could be potential benefits and harms? ( think about what we learned about Internet based business models on marketing research directed products)
The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss a case that would have ceased all federal funding for the research of human embryonic stem cells was a smart decision in my eyes. This is a major issue that could and will greatly contribute to bettering the health of countless lives. Yes, there will always be ethical dilemas to shuffle through, but not supporting such a groundbreaking area of research would be a crime. The fact that scientists are now moving more towards induced pluripotent stem cells rather than embryonic completely dismisses the issue of disturbing the fetus as well or any possible side effects that may occur. Having worked in an Oral Surgery clinic for several years now, I understand the importance of having healthy fast bone growth in an area occur after or leading up to a procedure. This could greatly reduce the discomfort or issues of patients, as well as allow for so many opportunities to occur that certain patients would not normally have due to possible bone decay/loss. The University of Michigan Dental School is a trailblazer for others to follow and should absolutely be supported in their goals.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be imperfections and bridges to cross when entering a new area of science, but I believe it is the place of government to help individuals with honest intentions to help and overcome those issues. While there is much research and testing to be done as is evident from the articles, there is much promise and opportunity for iPS-cells to take a much larger role in the medical field in the future.
I absolutely agree with the SCOTUS' decision to dismiss the lawsuit. The benefits and advancements resulting from ES cell research are far too great for this blanket ban on federal funding. There is still the ethical issues concerning the 'donating' fetuses, but I think the potential to improve/save millions of lives outweighs them. It looks as though induced pluripotent stem cells will replace ES cells in future research, but it is undeniable how important these past 10+ years of ES cell research has been for science. The iPS cells appear to be very promising, but of course there will be some backlash from anti-stem cell activists. Furthermore, there's always the risk of biomedical companies monopolizing iPS cell treatments, if any are developed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court’s decisions just because I feel like blanket laws aren’t necessarily good laws. Plus, evidently, research on ES has done a lot for science and so; cutting funding on research would not be beneficial at all. Instead it might take us back a step in all of the progress we have done in terms of finding other ways of helping people in need. But, obviously, there will be ethical issues in terms of whether the embryos are coming from and other things. The benefits of this court decision are obvious. The harms are also pretty clear. People on the pro side are going to get a lot of backlash and criticism from those who are against ES. Also, people will be able to keep posting and soliciting business over the Internet in relation to stem cell research, which can be scary. Personally, even though I know that this type of research has been of great benefit for the science world, it is still scary to think about using embryonic cells to generate other cells. So, just like I think it’s scary or a bit weird I understand why others would think the same. But at the same time, if the good outweighs the bad, then it’s best to go with it.
ReplyDeleteIn the first link given, it describes how iPS-cells can now be used to grow bodily tissues such as bone as opposed to utilizing ES-cells as has been done in the past. With the limitations on ES cell research, it is no surprise that scientists looked for an alternative. It’s simply amazing though that a differentiated adult cell can be reprogrammed to become a pluripotent stem cell! The first article given was a good summary of findings, but I think this link provides some more insight on how exactly this process works and how the discovery came about.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eurostemcell.org/factsheet/reprogramming-how-turn-any-cell-body-pluripotent-stem-cell
Simply put, a biopsy is done on an adult and somatic cells are extracted (skin cells for example). These cells are injected with up to 4 genes that “reprogram” the cell and revert it back into a pluripotent cell. From here, the cells may be grown to produce more and injected into the patient in need of stem cells, or further research can be done with them to study the particular affecting disease.
In regards to the second article listed, I think that the courts made the right choice by dismissing the lawsuit against ES-cell research. While this field has not had the full chance to develop and provide hard evidence that it is a beneficial treatment, there is plenty of promise for the future. I think that the ethical concerns surrounding using ES-cells will always be debated, but to hinder scientific progress when we could be saving lives seems ridiculous to me. However, I would probably encourage labs to continue using iPS-cells for their research because there certainly is less controversy in using these types of cells and because of this, there will be very little interruption in their research providing better outcomes for their projects. Unfortunately, politics will always play a role in science and because of this, using a promising, less controversial alternative such as iPS-research would be wise.
I do agree with the Supreme Court's decision to dimiss the lawsuit against human embryonic stem cell research because research in an area such as this could lead to numerous clinical treatments in many diseases. In regenerative medicine stem cells play an important role because they are undifferentiated cells and they have a self-renewal system. The discovery of creating induced pluripotent stem cells opening a door to new treatment methods. This method is still in the preliminary stages and research is continuing on the effects of changing the genetic code of these somatic cells and whether this might negatively effect the person's treatment outcome. On a positive note now we won't have to worry about the moral concerns on whether to use embryonic stem cells.
ReplyDeleteI read a little bit more on how they make these cells and it's a very interesting process. The difference in types of somatic cells is determined by the DNA of a cell, chromosomes that are bound tightly around histone proteins or loosely unwound DNA. This loosely unwound DNA allows for DNA transcription by polymerase to make mRNA. Only about 15% of the genes are actively expressed at anyone time, the rest are considered transgentically silent. The use of retroviruses can overexpress the transcription factors such as OC-3/4, SOX2, c-Myc and Klf4, which are needed to make iPS cells.
I think University of Michigan School of Dentistry in collaboration with New York-based NeoStem Inc. is on the right track because they can use this new regenerative method to avoid the embryonic stem cell debate as well as help patients.
I completely agree with the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit that would ban human embryonic stem cell research. This area of science is groundbreaking- it could change EVERYTHING about how we look at medicine. However, more unlikely, it could also be a dead end and nothing more than some incredible lab stories. Regardless, scientists should have the freedom to do their research. Although I agree there are some uncomfortable aspects of embryonic stem cell harvesting, the benefits therefrom are nothing short of miraculous. Also, the new discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells is certainly paving the way for a more ethical route of stem cell research. The fact that the supreme court dismissed this case shows that, perhaps, this country is going into a more modern way of looking at science- finally some more separation of church and state. Although I can completely understand why someone would be against embryonic cell harvesting, the amount of lives that could be saved because scientists could grow a compatible functioning liver, or heart, or any organ, are endless and are of all ages. Science & Medicine are very close to truly grasping the next scientific frontier that is Stem Cells. By no means in 2013 should anyone ban them from furthering both their, and our, knowledge.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that the court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit was the right decision. The above article describes the ways in which iPS cells can be used in order to grow tissues and bones. I agree with my classmate Tory when she said that the ability to use a differentiated adult stem cell as a pluripotent stem cell is simply amazing and groundbreaking. Without such research we would not know that a simple biopsy and cell extraction could lead to the productions of completely new and different types of bodily tissue. This research is imperative and could make a huge impact on medicine. If the court did not dismiss the lawsuit it could affect suture research and prevent such advances. The decision made by the court not only will benefit ES cell research, but all future stem cells research and findings. There are ethical issues that come along with such research, especially when the stem cells are coming from living organisms/beings. However other types of stem cell research do not require using other living organisms and therefore are less controversial. The idea of using embryonic cells in order to grow and generate other different cells is a little frightening but it could drastically affect the lives of those in need of bodily tissues such as a liver, heart, or bones. The implications of one day being able to generate such organs could lead down a slipper slope. The idea of Internet based business models taking hold of the new research and marketing research directed products to consumers to solicit stem cell research could lead to medicine being used to benefit those who may not necessarily need or understand the implications. We do not know exactly what will result from doing stem cell research but I believe our society would benefit from trying to find out instead of refraining from conducting in research that could forever change the face of medicine.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone who has posted before me when they say that the US Supreme Court made the right decision. There are obviously a lot of ethical dilemmas surrounding the whole stem cell research debate but if we just wait around for everyone to agree, there will be no progress. Showing the improvements and effectiveness of stem cell research and how it could potentially save lives is more persuasive than talking about it. A huge part of seeing these advances is federal funding which is why I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision.
ReplyDeleteWhile using VSEL stem cells does “eliminate ethical arguments and potential side effects associated with using actual embryonic stem cells derived from a fetus”, it may not be the best cells to study. I found this interesting article that talks about why we need embryonic cells and it claims that “adult stem cells have reached the final stage of the epigenetic process” after differentiated, being exposed to environmental factors and epigenetics. The article states that “these stem cells have a lot of history to be erased, confounding their usefulness for research”. Also fetal stem cells, while they can be usable for research because they are still differentiating, they are already being affected by external factors. Because of this the article argues that “embryonic stem cells are about as close to the tabula rosa as we can yet, meaning the cells and DNA are in its purest form so we can program them to be anything.
Of course, with all of the advantages of federal funding for embryonic stem cells, also comes the idea of a slippery slope. Opening this one door may lead to many more unintentional consequences. There will probably be a great increase in the controversy over ethics and what if people start trying to use these stem cells to just change DNA because they want to, not because they need to? While this could be a giant step in the positive direction, there is also a chance it might open a door that we’re not ready for yet.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/13582/why-we-need-embryonic-stem-cell-research
I just lіke thе helpful іnfo you ρrοvidе in
ReplyDeleteуour articleѕ. I'll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I am reasonably sure I'll learn a lot of nеw ѕtuff гight here!
Beѕt of luck fοr thе neхt!
Alѕο visіt my ωebsite ... payday loans
I disagree with the court decision to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research. For ethical reasons, I do not believe that research should be conducted on embryonic stem cells. Yes, embryonic stem cells have more plasticity, can grow more rapidly, and are not tainted by the environment like adult stem cells, however their potential has yet to be utilized in a clinical setting unlike adult stem cells. I believe by lifting the ban, stem cell funding will shift away from adult stem cells or iPS and towards embryonic stem cells resulting in greater ethical dilemmas.
ReplyDeleteMoving away from my concern with embryonic stem cell research, I am very enthusiastic about the potential to grow human bone by adult stem cells. By speeding up bone regeneration, discomfort will be reduced for patients who are dealing with bone trauma. This shows great potential in future treatments for bone trauma patients. My concern is with direct to consumer (DTC) companies, specifically their capability to abuse this knowledge. DTC companies could advertise these stem cells to help patients who broke a bone to heal faster. This may lead to patients pushing themselves faster through recovery and potentially harming themselves more. Vulnerable populations such as athletes wishing to return to their sport as fast as possible may fall for this trick and forgo traditional medical advice.
In a study conducted by Lau et.al., direct to consumer companies were evaluated for their clinical relevance and the information portrayed on their websites about stem cell research. The findings suggested that providers make “inaccurate claims in their promotional materials, patients may not be receiving sufficient and appropriate information, and may be shouldering inordinate risks” (Lau, 2008). Specifically, the sites lack high quality evidence in supporting the stem cell therapy thy offer. This could also happen with the bone regeneration and measures must be in place, such as FDA regulation, of direct to consumer sites to avoid scams and inaccurate information.
The link to the mentioned study: http://www.keck.bioimaging.wisc.edu/neuro670/reqreading/StemCellClinicsOnline-TheDirect-to-ConsumerPortrayalOfStemCellMedicine.pdf
Just as others have said, I agree with the court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit. I would be open to the idea of certain regulations about which embryonic stem cells are acceptable for research, just as we have regulations now regarding research participants, with IRBs etc, in order to address some of the concerns addressed by the people who brought the lawsuit; however, ES cells have much to contribute to scientific development. Ironically, the ES cell research freeze created innovation and iPS cells seem to hold many of the opportunities found in ES cells, with the added benefits of being less controversial and cultivated from one's own body. A family friend recently had stem cell therapy to regenerate a torn ligament in her knee- the stem cells were taken from her own body and the results were terrific: healing time was shortened, recovery was easier, and her knee feels great. It serves as an example as to the potential changes in treatment, surgery and recovery this could have.
ReplyDeleteI could see DTC companies taking advantage of this, by creating a service which would harvest your stem cells for "safe-keeping" until you need them for some sort of procedure. NPR had an "All Things Considered" segment regarding a private company doing stem cell therapy within the US, called Celltex.The FDA shut it down because it wasn't comfortable with the process within the lab between stem cell harvesting and treating the patient. Although I think it's important to have these companies be regulated or overseen somehow, I hope this is developed quickly as the patient in the article had MS and 11 of her 25 MS symptoms seem to be fading or have disappeared (her MS has progressed quite far, she is wheelchair bound). It's a difficult problem as the treatment is a good idea and as a specific patient, she's relying on it, but there needs to be regulation (as we have seen DTC companies can be misleading). I've attached the link below.
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/02/170942324/fda-challenges-stem-cell-companies-as-patients-run-out-of-time
I do agree with the court decision to dismiss the lawsuit that would’ve banned embryonic stem cell research. I think in this case, the benefits outweigh the ethical concerns. This area of research definitely needs the support of federal funding, as there are incredible potential benefits in regenerative medicine. While I do think the right decision was made, I think it i important that close government oversight continues as legislation may be needed in the future if this research goes in more worrying direction. However, the freeze seems to have generated a positive outcome. Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, created by reprograming adult cells to generate individually matched specialized tissues appear to be just as groundbreaking as ES-cell work. As more data is collected and iPS research catches up with ES cells, I think its important that funding is generally available to all stem-cell therapies; the possible benefits to individuals with blindness or spinal cord injuries could be invaluable. In addition, the VSEL stem cells derived from adults not fetuses seems like an advantageous direction to go in, as all ethical barriers are effectively avoided. I agree with the previous comments that a disadvantage of the decision could lead to companies trying to take advantage of the market in the future - either by direct to consumer testing which, as said, does not always lead to the best outcomes for patients, or patenting certain stem cell therapies which could lead to inequities in who is able to receive treatment.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the courts decision to throw out the lawsuit. Stem cells and iPS cells hold untold promise for future generations. The potential to create cells to replace damaged neurons and tissues and grow organs is too valuable to be banned and made illegal. This is important for those with terminal conditions and cancer. There are obviously more cases in which these can be used but these are two of the major ones. By lifting this dark cloud from over the field it has the potential to bring more researchers into the field. I agree with Kristen in the argument that the benefits out weigh the cons. The fact that the field looks less ominous than before will lure researchers to the field which could expedite the discovery of medical technologies and treatments that could help thousands.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the court's decision to dismiss the lawsuits because the benefits of ES cell research is just so great. I think that ES cell research was such an extraordinary discovery because the benefits of it is just so great. It would solve so many medical problems in our world right now and the benefits of it definitely outweigh the costs. There are definitely some ethical issues around it, but we've definitely come to work our way around it with the VSEL in the other article, and iPS. But even with the ethical issues, sometimes I do think the benefits of ES cell research is just so much more beneficial than the ethical issue behind it. Implications the court decision may have on the bone regeneration maybe another lawsuit with people bringing up more ethical issues around it. There will always be people who are against any type of stem cell research. The benefits of this might be to protect moral and ethical codes. But the harm of not being able to continue stem cell research is too great. There has been so many years already dedicated to the ES cell research. We know so much about it and just how beneficial it is. Also, with the new researches on iPS and the VSEL, I think people are really starting to improve ES cell research with something that doesn't have such an ethical dilemma around it. And it's great because people are continuing to improve science more and more. I think iPS cells definitely have much promise in the future medical field.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the court's decision to dismiss the lawsuits against ES cell research. The ethical issue that has hindered further research in ES cells concerns the varying views on the definition of life itself and whether or not humans are tampering with nature or going against religious doctrine. The bottom line is, this research has the potential to save and improve lives in the future. If the research were to be blocked, it would prevent patients from getting new treatments they really need and all because of the "ethics" on the matter. I do not believe that preventing access to treatments for patients who really need it is fair at all. I believe that there should be more choices to the types of treatment options a patient has; the patient should have his/her own choice of treatment that is morally acceptable to him or herself.
ReplyDeleteIPS cells may also be developed to increase the choices of treatment that a patient has. It would eliminate the ethics issue and may be an acceptable form of treatment as an alternative to ES cell treatment. In other words, perhaps a patient can choose between IPS or ES cells depending on his or her own morals. I do not believe that religion or beliefs should be used as a legitimate reason to limit the treatment options for all people. As for the bone treatment research, perhaps both IPS and ES cell therapy can be developed to give more choices for bone therapy options since IPS does have some functionality issues.
What I am concerned about is the business or direct-to-consumer side of the issue. I believe that IPS and ES cells should be tightly controlled by the government. There are likely to be tons of gimmicky, misleading, or even scamming websites or companies that try to sell IPS and ES cell technology to consumers. Liz Mathew brought up a good point when she found a link which suggested that these companies tend to have misleading information or information that is not backed up by medical literature. I feel that this technology should only be reserved for medical research or patients who need stem cell technology to save their lives, not as an alternative to botox or other non-medical or life-threatening demands.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the case that would have stopped all funding for stem cell research. Stem cell research is an important area of science that can greatly contribute to the improvement of health and potentially save many lives. Scientist are moving away from using embryonic stem cells from the fetus and have put a lot of focus on the iPS cells, which are created by ‘reprogramming’ adult cells into a stem-cell-like state. This helps reduce many of the ethical issues surrounding the subject, however it does not completely eliminate the concerns, thus I can see why people may not agree with the court decision. I believe that since the court is allowing for more funding, it shows that we are moving forward with science (moving from more conservative techniques to modern) in order to support what could be groundbreaking health benefits. Overall, the benefits of stem cells outweigh the harms. I do believe that this type of research should be tightly controlled to avoid any harm or the release of misleading information.
I agree with the court's decision to dismiss the case that would have blocked all funding for stem cell research. Stem cell research that is very plausible in improving the health outcomes of millions. By researchers focusing on research of iPS cells as opposed to stem cells from fetuses, this eliminates many of the ethical issues and opposition of this type of research commonly found in the public's opinion. I believe that by having more research on iPS cells, this could potentially give patients the choice of choosing what type of stem cell therapy that should be used, based on their opinions--either iPS or stem cells from fetuses.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that the Supreme Court threw out this lawsuit, because hindering funding for stem cell research could hold scientific research back greatly. I feel that by the Supreme Court dismissing this lawsuit, it shows how we are moving forward as a country and scientifically, and it shows that leaders are thinking more objectively and are separating their moral and values when it comes to evaluating such a ethically controversial topic that is stem cells from fetuses.
I would proceed with caution though. I would not want to see companies taking too much control over this technology and making it unaffordable to the masses. And if DTC companies do get a strong hold of this biotechnology, they should be heavily regulated by the FDA for example. I would just want to ensure patient safety as much as possible, which would further eliminate the already existing ethical concerns.
I have mixed feelings about whether or not the court made the right decision. After reading the article a few times I am not sure if the decision included iPS-cell research or not. I would assume that it would not, considering that the ban would have been on embryonic stem cell research. If shutting down embryonic stem cell research would have no affect on iPS-cell research, then I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision. I do not believe that it is ethically sound. There are other ways get stem cells that do not require starting the formation of a human being and then destroying it to get its stem cells. We are able to get stem cells from bone marrow, blood, and adipose tissue. In these cases, since the cells are coming from the very person who needs them for reconstruction of some type, there is decreased risk when these constructed tissues are introduced to his or her body.
ReplyDeleteThe court's decision means that the bone regeneration can go into full swing. Since embryonic stem cells are "generally cheaper, better behaved and backed by an extra decade’s worth of data", it is likely that those working with bones will take advantage of this recent freedom. iPS-cells will most likely still be heavily worked on because of their matching capabilities, though. A lot of people can benefit from increased healing when it comes to broken bones - such as the elderly. However, as with anything medical, there are risks when working with cells that we do not know 100% how to control. If the iPS-cells have a tendency to mutate, that could present very bad problems for those who have these tissues implanted. There could be possibility for cancers to grow from that. Cancer that is embedded in the bone could lead to more damage needing to be done to the original bone that there was before the stem cells were used.
DTC companies could easily come up with ways to use information about iPS-cells for their own gain. As an example, they could perhaps promise cosmetic surgery and make it sound appealing because it will all be your own cells being used in reconstruction.
Jamie Shaw
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the decision by the court to throw out the case. I think it would be a terrible decision for them to make a blanket decision regarding all federal funding for stem cell research. Stem cell research has the capacity to benefit thousands or millions of people, and it is now being discovered that stem cells can be generated other places than an embryo. I think that iPS-cells show a very promising future to be used as the "new" ES cells, and (given some time) they will probably come to be seen as ethically acceptable. However it is also necessary to look at the possible complications, as Magnolia Joseph (and many other classmates) above me, brought up. There are of course, possibilities for mutations and problems and DTC companies will of course try to exploit this information. However, I feel that using your own (adult) cells for regeneration, reconstruction, and research is a lot more ethically sound than using embryonic cells and I feel like in the future, there will be funding for iPS over the ES cells.
Quality articles is the crucial to attract the people to
ReplyDeletepay a visit the website, that's what this site is providing.
Also visit my web site - jocuri cu masini
I agree with the secondary decision to overrule the previous decision regarding federal funding of stem cell research. The initial ruling prohibited federal funding of research that destroys the embryo, however later ruling allowed federal support provided that the stem cell extraction was funded by private or state funding (New York Times). It potential scientific advancements offered by embryonic stem cell research far outweigh the costs of days old human embryonic cells. The ethical dilemma is whether the cost of sacrificing the potential lives embryos is outweighed by the life saving medical treatments that would arise from the research that they advance. And the answer in my opinion is yes. Legally the life of the fetus begins at viability or 28 weeks. Potentially loss cannot unequivocally be calibrated for the sacrificed embryos as such the “loss” is negligible however the gains provided by the research are undeniable. The implications that the court decision would have on bone regeneration are that they would allow the expansion of further study and therefore more reliable trial outcomes. While there is always the opportunity for fraud and exploitation stemming from new research, the benefits of bone regeneration far outweigh them. While there are existing bone regenerating systems such as EXOGEN, the use of stem cells would likely have better outcomes for patients due to the characteristics of stem cells.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nature.com/news/high-court-ensures-continued-us-funding-of-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research-1.12171
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/opinion/embryonic-stem-cell-research-gets-a-reprieve.html
http://www.exogen.com/patients/how-it-works/
I am in agreement with all of my classmates who have stated that they support the court's decision to dismiss the case against stem cell research funding. I think that making an overall decision to stop stem cell research funding would stifle innovation and progress in the field. Stem cell research has the potential to help a tremendous amount of people and with its prohibition, we would be closing doors for far too many people. The health of individuals should be a top priority and if the court had not dismissed this case, so many people would be denied access to new and more efficacious treatments that are possible with research in the field.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the ethical issues involved in embryonic stem research, there is some concern to the court's decision for dismissal of this case. I agree with Chin Chu's comment that in order to ensure that companies do not abuse their freedom in regard to stem cell research, the government should have a method of control over the research. I feel that stem cells are a topic that most lay people do not fully understand and companies can take advantage of this by misleading the public.
I agree with my fellow classmates in that a federal ban on stem cell research would be a set back in the scientific community. Cancer patients such as leukemia who go through chemo often get there bone marrow severely damaged receive stem cell transplants. Studies have also shown that stem cell transplants can act as a prevention action in that people with AML (acute myeloid leukemia) benefit greatly from stem cell transplant early on in the development of the disease. By using stem cells, the body would be able to heal itself. I also think that iPS cells will become more widely used and as Natalia said, it would give the patient more options on how to proceed with various treatments. Of course there are some concerns in whether the whole concept of stem cell research is ethical. I personally believe that it should be allowed because of it's capacity to help many people.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/aml-patients-benefit-from-stem-cell-transplants/
I see the lift of the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research as a benefit for the research community. I'm not entirely sure whether it is the right decision either way. In the name of progress and further development I do think it is a leading move for further cell research innovation. This field has a such potential for restructuring the way we think of the regeneration of our own cells. I also think that a heavier emphasis should be put into the iPS cells because they are a promising venue for a broad spectrum of treatments. There is always a sense of hesitation that I feel with direct to consumer testing and directed products. There is a lot of power being put into the companies to decide what is best interest of the consumer and is not always completely backed by scientific research. This could have good implications for the spread of stem cell research but also negative effects for the public opinion on the ethics revolving around embryonic stem cells.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court’s decision to throw out the lawsuit that would have prohibited using human embryonic stem cells. Using embryonic stem cells can greatly benefit the scientific community. I predict that there will be many advances made in science and technology because of the ability to use embryonic stem cells for research purposes. Had this lawsuit been successful, it would have been a big setback for the scientific community. I think that there are of course potential harms that can come from this as well. For example, to some people it is not moral to use embryonic stem cells. Additionally, we do not know what exactly the benefits of these potential discoveries will have, and they may come with some negative consequences.
ReplyDeleteI am very happy with the Supreme Court's decision to throw out the lawsuit. Prohibiting funding for research in this field is very unwise. We'd be denying ourselves potentially amazing health advancements and treatments for people suffering from numerous conditions. The research will bring it's risks and dangers as well, of course, but to not pursue it is arguably even more detrimental. The fact that we no longer need to use embryonic stem cells from a fetus demonstrates significant progress, and if research continues (which it will because now it can due to the Supreme Court's decision) even more advancements and discoveries can be made. And, because researchers no longer need to fear for the security of their projects, even more researchers will likely flock to this field of study, in turn leading to even more data and advancement.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are dangers we will likely face with this continued research. Funding battles are inevitable, and businesses creating monopolies on any treatments designed is foreseeable. Additionally, because this is such a highly-scientific subject, the majority of the public may be easily misled through marketing practices, rumors, and simple misinformation. As issues arise, the government needs to be ready to put controls in place to combat and remedy them.
I agree with the courts decision to throw out the lawsuit against human embryonic stem cell research. Stem cells provide promising cures for many different diseases and should be studied. Research has shown that embryonic stem cells are safe to use in the human body, but their origin is what people often have an ethical issue with. I think the best way to go about the research is to try to do it without the use of embryonic stem cells. It would avoid the problem around the controversy of when life actually begins.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in the article, “But, as iPS cells crop up in ever more labs, ES cells — generally cheaper, better behaved and backed by an extra decade’s worth of data — promise to have an important supporting role. Ever since iPS cells were described, researchers have been trying to understand just how similar they are to ES cells” If the iPS cells are so similar to ES cells, the research should be toward the iPS cells. The induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) look like a good potential substitute for the embryonic stem cells. As they can be taken directly from the patient’s body and transplanted into the same person, there’s no issue with the person rejecting them and no ethical issues with harvesting the cells.
Problems with internet based business could arise if there was an underground black market for iPS cells to regenerate bone or fix other problems. Emmy mentioned this earlier in her post about DTC companies taking advantage of people with little knowledge about what exactly iPS cells are capable of. Somehow this should be avoided before it begins.
I am in support of the Supreme Court’s decision to continue to allow federal funding of research on embryonic stem cells (ES). Though I understand the ethical implications of using a fertilized human embryo for experimentation, I believe that the continuation of research and study of these cells can contribute to significant scientific findings that will greatly impact the future of disease and treatment.
ReplyDeleteThe inclination among researchers to recognize the potential of iPS seems to be a beneficial new development. Utilization of these cells should quell the worries of those who found studies on ES ethnically controversial and please others with its more natural techniques. Though the past 10 years of research on ES has been extremely valuable, I believe scientists will begin to view iPS as the study subject of the future as ES’s presence shifts as important stepping stone along the way.
It is worrisome that companies might take advantage of consumers by increasing access to DTC testing or gear marketing campaigns based on half-truths that lack supportive data. It is my hope that while iPS technologies remain in development, consumer access is limited and strictly regulated until results are confirmed and safety measures are secured.
I learned last year in my medical ethics class about the ethical obligations of medical research. Voluntary participation must be honored to ensure that everyone involved is doing so by their own free will. This ties into the principle of informed consent, and should only be used in testing on those who are able and mentally or physically stable to give consent of their body to be used in experimentation. Next confidentiality and anonymity are a requirement because it is crucial to many individuals that they not have a stigma associated with the medical decisions they choose to participate in. Among these few concerns along with a few others such as autonomy and beneficence, I think the study of ES cells adhered to all regulations except for non-maleficence. This ethical obligation to do no harm was not followed throughout the study and I think the court made a smart decision to freeze all action until scientists could reflect on all of the studies conducted so far. This was clearly done to ensure extra precaution because the safety of the participants comes first.
ReplyDeleteiPs cells are a good way to continue medical research in a safer way, until ES cells are prepared to continue. Of course there are dangers and implied risk in the majority of all medical research, but there needs to be a limit on the authority we give to scientists who may be willing to go too far to achieve their goal. It is still a new area of science and further assessment is needed before we nationally advertise such a study that may not be applied to an entire population.
As everyone else has mentioned above, I agree with the court’s decision. There are far too many benefits that come with the research, and it is always important to consider it for the larger good of society. I have the utmost faith that the research will only expand our knowledge in health care. It is quite a feat that new tissues can be created from cell extraction. There are ethical issues that come with working with embryos, but preventing the research is taking away the opportunity of saving many lives as well. However, there are also many other types of stem cell research available that don’t require the use of embryoslike the iPS cells or other types use other organisms. For instance, a lot of stem cell research is done with mice. However, even then, many might disagree with the use of testing on animals. Where do we draw the line? I feel like there will always be people disagreeing with some aspect of research but that is no reason to limit it. The focus on iPS cells is a good balance for the ethical issues and further research.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the fact that they brought back the federal funding on embryonic stem cell research. As many classmates have said, research has the power to save lives. Although there are many ethical issues with using fertilized human embryos, the research has the potential to do more good than harm. Obviously there needs to be consent from the person to allow them to experiment on their unborn fetus, however if the person truly understands the benefits to the research then more will allow it. One of the benefits to allowing the funding to remain in tact include, having the ability to use and access excessive amounts of the stem cells for bone growth and replacement. Research entails having the skilled and qualified staff who understand the benefits and harms of this.
IPS cells represent the advancing knowledge of stem cell research to benefit the field without having to deal with ethical barriers. Other sources of cells are of great importance as well, such as from the amniotic fluid or amnion itself for stem cell collection, leaving the embryo unharmed. Under president GW Bush, the decision to cut funding from major corporations was a political move that put the research community a decade behind or more. Alzheimer's, cancer, and many other disease that can be solved or aided by tissue regeneration need the funding and the freedom to pursue these avenues if we can't to better the lives of millions of patients around the world. The supreme courts decision is a landmark victory for science and patients as a whole, since new therapies and drugs can be developed to prevent degeneration or even the disease from starting. Osteocytes specifically need a network of osteoblasts and other components to create a healthy and robust skeletal framework, meaning a deficiency in bone regeneration or osteocyte performance can put a patient at a greater risk for bone fractures and the development of osteopenia and osteoporosis. With ips cells introduced, bone health can be greatly increased in a short period of time to create a calcified lattice structure without any soft or weakened spots that could have pores or hairline fractures. The purpose of these cells is to create a network of safer and noninvasive repair to the body's cells, and these methods should remain an open source for all companies much like companies owning genes. All companies should have an equal stake in forwarding this new technology of DNA alteration and introduction into the human body, so that the focus of research can be shifted away from profit and towards efficacy and the health of patients. Although I agree that companies should own rights and earn profits from these methods, they should not be barring other institutions from using their methods.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court decision. If a pregnant woman consents to having the embryonic stem cells in her taken and used for research, than I think she should be allowed to. Some people believe that it is an abortion, but I think its better to use those embryonic stem cells when the woman knows she doesn't want to continue on with the pregnancy. The court threw out the case, which now allows federal funding to continue with this research. Using the VSEL stem cells to grow human bone would be very helpful if it is possible. Since the cells are taken from adults, the wishy washy debate of ES won't have an effect on this research, unless the study were to use ES as well. I think the potential benefits of being able to grow human bones from your own cells would be enormous. Broken bones could be replaced instead of having to wear casts for several weeks or even months. Bone marrow transplants could occur using someone's own bone marrow. It would eliminate the pain of the procedure. In the future, we may be able to replace limbs that were missing. Some harms would be having direct to consumer companies promising to grow your bones with a DNA sample, but using the bones for other people, not growing them at all, or making false promises to consumers about how much bone can be grown.
ReplyDeleteLike most of my classmates above, I agree with the court’s decision to throw out the case. There are far too many benefits from researching the human embryonic stem cells to ban federal funding. This research could be groundbreaking when it comes to new treatment methods. The article describes how the iPS cells can be used to grow tissues and bones. Scientists should definitely be free to research these cells and their benefits in the medical field. I believe that the court made the right choice to support the research of ES cells which could change the future of medicine and health care in the US. We know that embryonic stem cells have more plasticity and grow more rapidly, which is why they could have huge benefits in regenerative medicine. This research will be very useful for patients with cancer and other terminal conditions, which is why I don’t think a ban should be placed on research that could change so many people’s lives.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be ethical concerns with this type of research, but I feel that the benefits outweigh the harms. However, I worry that DTC companies might take advantage of this but there is always a risk of this when developing new medical technology. There may be consequences from furthering this research but like my classmates, I think that many scientific advances will be made from using ES cells in research.
I agree with the court decision to allow federal funding of all research on human embryonic stem cells. It is important that funding go towards ES cells because it allows scientists to learn more about iPS cells. One of the articles discusses how it is important to still use ES cells in research because it is the basis for which scientists can compare the accuracy of iPS cells. Perhaps in the future it will not be necessary to extract ES cells from human fetuses, but right now it is important to provide funding for this research so that scientists can develop new ways to make stem cells.
ReplyDeleteThis court decision is beneficial to the bone regeneration article we read. Federal funding is important because it allows researchers to test their VSEL stem cells. This research is important to invest in because the stem cells are derived from adult cells, not fetuses. This is important for the debate because it eliminates a great deal of the controversy surrounding ES cells. By eliminating the need for ES cells, it makes many more people feel like this is an ethical process. The use of adult cells eliminates the debate surrounding when life starts and whether or not it is ethical to take stem cells from a fetus that cannot consent to this procedure. I feel that there are many more benefits than harms with this research. However, there is always the problem that DTC companies can get involved and provide false marketing to consumers. There should definitely be laws and regulations put into place as stem cell research continues to grow and advance. These laws and regulations will protect consumers from DTC companies trying to market making stem cells for people in their labs. That is what I feel would be the biggest problem. These DTC companies would market that they could take a sample of human cells and transform them into iPS cells and then sell them back to the consumer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI, like nearly all of my classmates, agree with the court decision to throw out the lawsuit that would have blocked federal funding of all research on human embryonic stem cells. With the substitution of human-induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS stem cells) derived from human adults for embryonic stem cells derived from the human fetus, I believe there has been a significant relief among researchers, policymakers, and the general public in regards to ethical implications of "picking apart" a human fetus who will have been derived an opportunity at life. Human-induced pluripotent stem cells are derived voluntarily from willing adults, and in many cases, the stem cells they give will be the same cells they receive in their stem cell therapy, as is the case with the dental implant research happening at the University of Michigan. Though these genetically-matched tissues are more likely than embryonic stem cell tissues to develop mutations during replication, the scientists may just have to monitor the iPS cells more closely before implanting them back into the patient; generally speaking, this type of stem-cell therapy is the more ethically sound option.
ReplyDeleteThe implications of the court decision on the topic of bone regeneration allow for future exploration of iPS cells in regenerating bone by enticing more research teams than just those at the University of Michigan and the NeoStem company to explore the area, but it could also allow for more embryonic stem cell (ES) research by other groups who were previously halted in their actions, which may yield more promising stem cell therapies, but rekindling the old flame of ethical distress.
Thinking about the internet-based business models on marketing research-directed products, this court decision means that there will be an influx of published research on stem cell therapies from both iPS and ES cells, and this paves the way for internet-based companies to "sell" stem cell therapies based on this new research, which may not be conclusive, yet still published and available for extravagant misuse by private companies to sell "miracle cures" to naive clientele on the internet, desperate to find cures for various diseases and ailments.
I agree with the court decision but with reservations. I think it’s right for the blanket ban to be lifted as research studies and cases need to be looked at a more individual basis (or at least not all lumped together) and tremendous gains can be made from research and therapies involving stem cells. Yet I also think that the ethical and moral dilemma with sourcing embryonic stem cells is complicated and difficult to dismiss.
ReplyDeleteI found Maysam’s point about the irony of the ban on ES cell research creating innovation interesting. As a less controversial option, further research on iPS cells deserves funding and attention – it will be interesting to see what becomes of it in the future – and I think that the court decision can ease access to funding for research similar to the study on bone regeneration.
One of the articles noted that the Geron company shut down a trial after it was deemed a poor investment and injections of human ES cells were not benefiting patients with spinal cord injuries. Stem cell research overall still needs more time and funding to explore options (e.g. iPS cells) and discover its full potential.
As research progresses, I am sure that DTC companies will find ways to sell applications of stem cell research to consumers, such as quick-fix/cures where prevention or other treatments would have been a better option. They may even promise benefits from treatments involving stem cells that don’t actually exist or are ineffective (such as the faulty genetic tests that yield mixed results, as seen in class). Patents on technologies will be implicated as well, beyond what already exists today.
I agree with the Supreme’s Courts decision to dismiss the case that would have ended all funding for embryonic steam cells. With every new technology or discovery in the science world it seems to bring along an ethical issue with it. Some people are going to be opposed to the idea and others are not, but to think that we were going to stop the funding and research in this area of stem cell research was a huge disappointment. This area shows so much promise for future diseases and treatments. I think in this particular case the good outweighs the bad and therefore we should continue funding in this area. The discovery of the new IPS cells is making this research less controversial and more widely accepted. The fact that the Supreme Court dismissed this case shows a lot about what they think of it. If the Supreme Court did not think that this could be a major breakthrough in the science world then I think they wouldn’t have dismissed the case. They must think that this has the possibility of changing the way in which we think about medicine.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do see as a problem is direct to consumer selling. There are many companies out there that sell directly to consumers that are totally false and are backed with no scientific evidence. Some can be very misleading and trick people in thinking that it will work for them just to make money. Yes, there are some safe and appropriate DTC companies out there but people have to be aware of many of the misleading ones.
I agree with the court decision because there are so many benefits that can come from this research. We still do not know to what extent this cell research can help people who are sick with diseases that are currently named “incurable.” The potential for all types of specialized cell regeneration is at stake here and furthering this research could help to reverse conditions such as blindness, or lead us to cures for cancer. I think that there is a lot of potential for this research to be abused, and it definitely will need to continue to be closely monitored to ensure that everything stays ethical. Strict laws must be put in place to ensure that this research is not abused. With proper monitoring, I think this research has amazing potential and the benefits are definitely outweighed by the risks.
ReplyDeleteYes I do agree with the court’s decision. Despite the controversy surrounding the use of ES cell use, the opportunities that they could provide completely outweighs the costs. With ten years of research backing up its benefits, ES stem cell research holds a cheap alternative method to solve problems that many face. There could be a lot of setback from religious communities and people that are worried to invest due to the many times that ES research clinics have been shut down. The use of iPS cells can offer potential benefits and shrugs off the controversy that comes along with ES use. But without a lot of research done on them, the potential for problems to occur is vast. With possible mutations, or the harvesting of the cells going wrong, error can possibly be unavoidable. This can offer n exciting new opportunity for people who can pay for it. But as was stated in the article, people using ES cells have a better opportunity and more research to back up evidence that people could benefit.
ReplyDeleteThis article, “Cells Culled from Adults May Grow Human Bone” on ScienceDaily.com, was a great way to get some perspective on what we’ve recently learned about stem cells and their applications. Learning about VSEL stem cells, and how they differ ethically from embryonic stem cells derived from a fetus, was pretty interesting as well. Robin Smith, chairman and CEO of NeoStem, emphasized the importance for the development of embryonic-like stem cells from the patient's own body to treat a wide range of diseases. For reasons similar to this, I agree with the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit against human embryonic stem cell research. US funding for each approach is now roughly matched at about US$120 million a year, and this lawsuit would have blocked federal funding of all research on human embryonic stem cells completely. Like Chris Gordon said in his post, “Yes, there will always be ethical dilemmas to shuffle through, but not supporting such a groundbreaking area of research would be a crime.” The potential benefits really do outweigh the costs here, and it’s potential to help the lives of others makes this research worth it. Alisa Peterson’s example of cancer patients with Leukemia hit it home for me, showing just how worth it all of this is. “Studies have also shown that stem cell transplants can act as a prevention action in that people with AML (acute myeloid leukemia) benefit greatly from stem cell transplant early on in the development of the disease. By using stem cells, the body would be able to heal itself.” I think it is great that many students in the class agree with the Supreme Court’s decision; this really shows how we want to better the health and lives of others. When thinking about the harms with regards to business models and marketing research directed products, I cannot help but to think of direct-to-consumer testing. Though our class has been educated to understand the results and know how to look for “red flags,” the general public cannot; it would be so easy to market stem cell testing and make thousands of dollars off of it. Because of this, agree with Chin Chu that, “IPS and ES cells should be tightly controlled by the government.” This way, we can keep everything focused on the research and the potential to save lives in the future.
ReplyDeleteLike most of my classmates I would agree with the court's decision on throwing out a lawsuit that would have blocked federal funding of all research on human embryonic stem cells. As the article stated it would greaty benefit the induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells studies. Diseases that could benefit from pluripotent stem cells can include immune-system related genetic diseases, cancers, and disorders; juvenile diabetes; Parkinson's; blindness and spinal cord injuries. That doesn't leave without saying that there will still be ethical issues that arise as well as technical probems. This seems all so beneficial but more research is necessary to come up with more concrete conclusions and without funding for these answers, science would be at a standstill. The court's decision will have a positive effect on bone regeneration. According to the first article the use of adult cells to mimic the properties of embryonic stem cells can provide a minimally invasive way to speed painful bone regeneration. This is a great alternative and with the court's decision it's posible to further research for this method. The potential benefits include finding a cure for the diseases listed above. However, there are harms that come with this. With the internet being a major resource for many, companies can take advantage of this but monopolizing of the fact of these cures. It is possible for people to falsely advertise and take advantage of what a certain product or service dealing with iPS will provide. This would be harmful to consumers but beneficial in a business stand point.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell
As many of my classmates have stated, I completely agree with the court's decision. Although there are many ethical issues surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells, the benefits of this research far outweigh the costs in my opinion. The use of pluripotent and ES has the ability to open up many doors to treatments in the medical world. It is important that we do not make a generalized rule against all stem cell use because there are many benefits that can come from this research. I do feel that there should be strict laws regulating the use of stem cells to avoid ethical dilemmas and other issues surrounding their use.
ReplyDeleteI also worry that stem cell breakthroughs will be used as marketing tools in the future to promote DTC testing. I hope that the great opportunities that will be brought about through ES and iPS will not be used to take advantage of consumers.
Like everything, there is always more than one side. Take religion for instance. The reason I bring up religion is because lets not kid around that the reason the court got involved in the first place had nothing to do with religion. According to some Christians the role of creating human life and taking life away belongs to God. To other Christians preserving life and ailing suffering is our role as human beings to each other and ourselves. The argument would go that stem cells can prevent suffering and help so many people, but God is the one who creates life and messes with cells, by doing stem cell research we are impeding on God’s own work. See where the issue is. In most things there are contradictions. It’s our job as humans to determine how we reason these contradictions and how we can respectfully proceed. In my opinion I agree with the court to lift the ban on stem cell research. I believe that the reason stem cells are being used is primarily to help people and allow them to be free from their ailments. So for me it seems like a no brainer, and I’m glad that the court saw it this way.
ReplyDeleteWith the court ruling the way it did, there will definitely be more research and trials involved around stem cells. Assuming proper care is taken then I believe there will be many more scientific break-throughs. I think by allowing stem cell research we as a country give ourselves the ability to stay as one of the most advanced scientific powers in the world. Some negatives I see are if companies, aka DTC companies try and make a profit off of this stem cell allowance. I think in order to prevent this, laws and guidelines must be put in place to keep these companies from doing anything shady. Another negative would be regarding the use of this research, I think in order to keep both sides of the stem cell argument happy then there needs to be some restrictions on how and why the stem cells will be used. Now I think this point refers directly to the idea of growing bones. I think growing bones can obviously be useful in replacing hips and knees, however once we start playing God and replacing bones of older people just because they are old then I’m not sure if this will go over so well. I think restrictions of the use of these stems cells needs to be made, and that in doing so we will be keeping everybody happy.
I am constantly amazed by the science of today. It is amazing to me that research is being done to use differentiated adult stem cells as pluripotent stem cells in order to manipulate the function of tissues and cells. In my opinion, the supreme court decision to throw out the lawsuit will benefit both ES cell research, and overall stem cell research as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of my classmates in the notion that the supreme court made a just, fair decision. It is evident that there are many ethical dilemmas surrounding stem cell research. However, there will always be controversy when it comes to research, especially research that deals with the human body. The article, which describe the ways in which iPS cells can be used in order to grow tissues and bones, illustrates the fact that there is so much room for future medical advancement. I feel that the supreme court decision supporting stem cell research will allow more and more discoveries to be made in the near future and benefit society as a whole. It is clear that any research presents risks, however, to not allow the research would be far more detrimental to society because it would limit the future of medical advancement and understanding of bone regeneration. It would also place restraints on treatments that would be made possible with future stem cell research.
It is obvious to me whey the use and manipulation of embryonic cells in research is controversial. However, I believe that as a governing power, the government should do what they can for the welfare of the people as a whole, and this research is clearly needed in order to benefit those in need of medical aid. The implications the court decision would have on bone regeneration are that it will enable further research and one day possibly allow for the reliable generation of vital organs such as the heart & liver. In the end, we don't know where this research will take us. However, there is nothing wrong with doing the research that will enable an informed decision.
I agree with the Court's decision to throw out a lawsuit that would have blocked federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The majority of the responses also seem to agree with the court's decision. I agree because this type of research will be very beneficial in the long run and hopefully researchers will be able to find a cure to many illneses. There is a lot of debate around this topic, but the benefits outweigh the costs tremendously. The implications that this decision will have for bone regeneration will be that they will now be able to do so now using embryonic stem cell research.
ReplyDeleteThere are always harms that come associated with new research. This stem cell research, especially iPS cells could lead to Direct to Consumer Online websites hoping to make a profit. There DTC sites may advertise keeping consumer's stem cells for long term use when necessary. Although stem cell research is extremely helpful, I think that many companies will see this as a new market to make money and a tremendous amount of individuals will be taken advantage of. I also wonder whether or not the FDA will regulate these DTC sites if they ever come to exist.
Like many of my classmates, I agree with the court's decision. While there are downsides to the decision, I think the ultimate reasoning that led to the decision makes it the right one. That is, besides the implication that people may have alternative motives in supporting more research on embryonic stem cells, the courts decision is a good one if people purely use the opportunity for the good of the people. That being said, it is fascinating to me that in the first article, VSEL technology is being used to grow bone, focusing in the dental area. Scientists expect to apply their research on other bone growths and healing, thus expanding its application to other health conditions. In addition, in the second article, now that induced pluripotent stem cells have been recently brought into the spotlight, it is incredible how cell therapy is developing. With more funding that the court's decision now allows, more techniques regarding stem cells can be discovered more than ever. However, just like various types of genetic testing has been taking advantage of by commercial, internet DTC companies, stem cell research could also easily be used for alternative reasons to benefit the DTC companies and not truthfully exploit its real purpose to help the health of people. That would be the implication of the court's decision.
ReplyDeleteFrom a scientific standpoint I do agree with the SCOTUS decision to dismiss the lawsuit. However, for ethical reasons I struggle with the decision. While I do acknowledge that there are many benefits to working with embryonic stem cells such as having more plasticity, growing more rapidly, and not being affected by the environment like adult stem cells, I agree with the concluding statement in the first article that iPS cells are the future of research. Embryonic stem cells have been used in the lab a decade longer than iPS research and a great deal of information has been collected about the benefits of using embryonic stem cells. Moving forward though, I think that funding should shift the focus more toward iPS cell research as there is still more research to be done on the benefits and additional uses of these stem cells. Research on bone regeneration using iPS cells has already shown encouraging results, but the dismissal of the lawsuit by the Supreme Court has diminished the fear of losing funding for ES research shifting the focus and funding back on the benefits of ES. By potentially shifting the focus away from iPS cells, bone regeneration research could lose funding or be refocused on ES which may not have as positive results. Using VSELs, a minimally invasive way to speed up painful bone recovery for dental patients and others recovering from bone trauma could be developed if the research is allocated the necessary resources and funding which could revolutionize healthcare and bone regeneration. On the other hand, if more funding is given to ES research, medical advancements and research may shift away from bone regeneration and more towards the use of ES to produce a product that can help rebuild the layer of cells that supports photoreceptors in the eyes of people with certain types of blindness which would also be a great addition to the healthcare system. I think that these are both examples of benefits and harms of the SCOTUS ruling, depending on which type of research you support as an individual. It has been said that ES cells are easier to prompt into neurons than iPS cells. Additionally, because iPS cells begin with different patterns of gene expression and can also acquire mutations during the reprogramming process, meaning every iPS cell must be thoroughly evaluated before it can be used in a study. Both facts could potentially deter research with iPS cells and encourage further research on ES cells. I also feel that there are still numerous ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of ES cells for many people, despite this Supreme Court ruling. I think that while this seems to diminish fear of funding for ES cell research, there is still much less controversy surrounding the use of iPS cells, since they are reprogrammed adult cells rather than coming from an embryo which could make them more appealing to conduct research with rather than ES cells. Overall I feel that both types of cell research have their benefits and harms and it is in the eye of the researcher or individual to determine which type of stem cell research will be more beneficial and will do less harm, but there is still a long way to go and many discoveries yet to be made in the area of stem cell research as a whole.
ReplyDeleteSince we are all students interested in medicine and research, I think most of our genomics class would agree with the Supreme Court decision to continue embryonic stem cell testing. Although there are ethical concerns with this testing, advancements could save existing human life. I wish I had more knowledge about how scientists receive the embryos to make a more valid argument… With my basic understanding, I feel that in the future more people can be saved or helped. This would lead to less of a strain on medical resources and a more able-bodied workforce. So, overall, not only would this technology help an individual person with medical issues, but society as a whole. The obvious harm of using embryos is that many people will argue that you are killing a future human, an unborn life that never stood a chance in the world. Many people already protest abortion and the same arguments would arise here.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it was reassuring to hear that scientists are using VSEL stem cells (as mentioned in the other article), and also making iPS cells to use for testing. This would solve many ethical problems but will these types of cells ever be as good as the gold standard of embryonic stem cells? I think using stem cells are important tools that will help us unlock many secrets in medicine.
I definitely agree with the Supreme Court's decision to allow research on induced stem cells. The fact that embryonic-like stem cells can actually grow bone is so amazing and of such superior importance, that to simply go against such furthering of research is just incomprehensible. Human lives could be bettered and saved with such scientific knowledge. There will obviously be individuals and companies out there with bad intentions who will plan to exploit such medical advancements, but there is good and bad with everything in life, and in this case, the good outweighs the bad. The idea that someone who was once blind could have a chance at seeing again, or that someone who was paralyzed could possibly walk again, is simply far to important to ignore. With close monitoring, stem cell research could further the quality of life for so many individuals, while preventing severe misuse of medical technology.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court's decision to permit further investigation of capabilities of stem cell research. First of all, I believe that stem cell's can solve many medical issues future and in the right hands this knowledge has the potential to save many lives. I believe that by using technology such as VSEL stem cells, much of the main points of people who oppose stem cell research are put to rest. As a future health care provider I see great value in the potential benefits of stem cell research. Having the ability to produce new tissues to cure such a wide range of diseases is far too appealing to totally dismiss. With promising findings such as the ability to create stronger bone or possibly curing peoples' blindness keeps me on the pro-stem cell side of the controversy. Like many other topics of research, embryonic stem cell research faces ethical opposition of certain groups of people. I believe that the Supreme Court recognized in this case that the possible benefits far outweighed the consequences in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court's decision to throw out the lawsuit that would have blocked federal funding of embryonic stem cells. ES cells differentiate the most successfully, which is why, “Human ES cells will always be the standard to which other cells will be compared,” says Roger Pedersen in the article. Since testing ES cells causes such great controversy, researchers can use the more widely accepted iPS cell testing until ES cell testing becomes more and more supported by society. If iPS cell testing and VSEL stem cell testing are proven successful, society will have to agree the benefits of ES cell testing will outweigh the ethical issues. I also agree with the fact that iPS cell testing and ES cell testing receive the same amount of federal funding because both the positives and negatives are somewhat even. For example, there are more ethical issues with ES cell testing, even though it has been backed by an extra decade of research. The courts decision to support embryonic stem cell research will lead to more support of bone regeneration by VSELs especially because they come from adults. This will be accepted because of there is far less ethical concern regarding extracting differentiable cells from adults than from embryos. This could cause activist groups who are currently against ES cell testing will not agree with the Supreme Court's decision and could try to reduce support for ES testing which will harm the importance of the research.
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting to me is, perhaps the reason iPS and VSEL research have been so thoroughly investigated is due to the ban itself. If you look at the graph attached to the article, it shows that initially a great deal of research was published solely on ES cell therapy, but after 2010 (when the government financing ban began) there was a notable increase in publications utilizing iPS and VSEL techniques. The lack of support may have actually forced researchers to innovate and discover new ways of utilizing cells and harnessing their regenerative properties without embryos . We see this type of “forced” innovation in many disciplines; one example is in clean energy. Only after severe increases in oil prices and government pollution regulations did industries begin seriously developing alternative energy sources. As a result, we have more methods of clean energy today than in the past decade and the rate of usage has also significantly improved (data in the link below). This example parallels the scenario in the area of stem cell research, when resources and funding were low, alternative methods to cell therapy were developed. I think it is an interesting theory, it cannot necessarily be proven that the lack of funding caused an increase in innovation (essentially it is a non causa pro causa dilemma) however it is still possible that the limitations may have served some motivation for developing alternatives to embryonic research.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=3850
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court's decision to allow funding towards stem cell research. I believe this area of research has a lot of promise towards offering beneficial health outcomes, especially for spinal cord injuries. This ruling could aid in providing more funds towards this realm of research. This court decision could aid the research towards bone regeneration by opening more pathways for funding. Researchers should still be very wary and explicitly detail their research to avoid any controversy that may arise over the general public misconstruing IPs and embryonic stem cells. DTC companies may also try to exploit this research and attempt to offer stem cell treatments or extractions that may have false claims. Stem cell research needs to be strictly regulated to help avoid controversy and companies with false claims seeking profit. I look forward to all of the new knowledge we can gain by exploring this area further.
Do the end justifies the means? I this case, I feel like it does. I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the case that would have blocked federal funding of all research on human embryonic stem cells because not only has this type of research been beneficial to different types of medical advancements, but it has also been very successful and has had a great impact on human health In the future. For example, I feel like the University of Michigan is on the right track of developing iPS research and taking advantage of this new technology so that it would be beneficial to human health (specifically regarding to the article, human oral health). From this article, it could be seen that Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS) research has the potential to override and replace ES research in the future, but as what the article states, it presently “has not yet caught up with that of ES-cell work”. Personally, I would agree to continue funding and work on ES-cell research but also, further emphasis should be placed on iPS research to increase the progress that iPS might potentially have on human health which will help iPS research override ES-cell work in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court’s decision like most of my classmates. I think it’s important that ES cells be available for research especially if it can enhance iPS cell research. There are many ethical implications to ES research but if it can be used to enhance iPS research and make iPS cells available for certain treatments stem cells may be more generally accepted by the public. I think that the court decision will only have positive effects on the bone regeneration research. If iPS cells are preferred then ES cell research can help answer questions about mutations and other roadblocks as mentioned in the second article. The benefits definitely outweigh the harms.
ReplyDeleteJust like my classmates I agree of the court's ruling. It is no surprise that stem cell research is the future. Generating perfectly matched specialized tissues is a phenomenon scientists only dreamed of back in the day. What makes us as Americans about re-creating or generating anything out of the blue are the ethical implications of it all. A rule of thumb about ethics is if you have a queasy feeling about it, then it may be morally wrong. Think about it. If I say "cloning" your immediate response is most likely a little disturbing.
ReplyDeleteAs Devon mentioned it is reassuring that classmates are taking into consideration the ethical standpoints of this type of research. It seems to me that the benefits outweigh those ethical guidelines and if we are able to help rebuild the layer of cells that support photoreceptors then by all means work with the research. It is a critical component to begin advancing in the clinical sense as well because much of the money has been invested to oversee the safety of the procedure, but now is the time to work with the FDA. It will still take a very long time for scientists to envision this type of research and procedure to go into the market because of funding and grant proposals.
As many other classmates have said, I agree with the court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit due to the fact that with this specific type of research, the benefits outweigh the costs. Being able to intern in an oral surgeons office, I observed many bone grafting procedures and techniques used to rebuild the jaw of patients undergoing cancer resection surgery, or to close the fistula of a child with a cleft lip and palate. These procedures have made tremendous impacts on the lives of patients and have improved their quality of life. Therefore I feel as though U-M researchers are on the right track and have a great idea that could improve upon the procedures used in the current medical and dental field. Although this stem cell research has tremendous advantages in the perspective of treatment of diseases and bone regeneration, an implication that the court decision could have on bone regeneration is the increased likelihood of DTC sites taking advantage of consumers’ lack of education and convincing them to store their stem cells for future use. If used correctly and under strict government regulation, these DTC sites could improve the health of its’ customers; but due to the fact that many DTC companies are very misleading people can be scammed out of money through convincing advertisements if not educated properly on the topic at hand. I believe that this is a field of science that can have a positive impact on the health of our society and overall medical research.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit. Most of the people who think that this is unethical say that it is because it is dangerous to fetuses. However this specific kind of technology derives from adults according to the Science Daily article and it eliminates that argument of potential side effects associated with using actual embryonic stem cells derived from a fetus. When comparing the benefits and harm of this situation, the benefits definitely overpass the harm and that is what the court saw in this case. This kind of technology will help many people and make an impact in improving people's lives. With this technology being passed, it can lead to advancing more technology in the field. The implications that the court decision have on the bone regeneration is having internet based businesses for bone regeneration. Businesses can see this as a maximizing profit opportunity and can take advantage of this situation. However, if there is government action or organizations that can regulate the quality and legitimacy of the companies, then it will easily solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree strongly with the courts decision. Embryonic stem cell research is extremely beneficial and a lot of advancements have risen from its usages. The very people who are protesting against it probably know someone/are someone who has received (either directly or indirectly) some benefit from this type of research. As always, there are ethical risks when you consider using human lives, or tissues rather, for science and development. Unfortunately, it seems to be the price that is paid for advancement. I feel as though the researchers have an idea here that could greatly improve the lives of many patients. As with all inventions/ingenuity, businesses are always going to have the opportunity to profit and benefit, that is why more stringent laws need to be in place when their "opportunity" has to do with human lives. Like Jeannie said, steps need to be taken to regulate quality and legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the Supreme Court's decision regarding embryonic stem cell research. While I acknowledge the ethical concerns, I also strongly believe that stem cell research could lead to potential cures for many health problems. The benefits of stem cell research are countless.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to bone regeneration, the court decision may or may not have a huge impact. The first article mentioned research into VSEL stem cells from adults not fetuses, that could potentially help with bone regeneration. It's possible that VSEL stem cells will be successful, but if not, due to the Supreme Court decision, research on bone regeneration can be done with embryonic stem cells or induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Already it seems like many companies and labs are focusing on the iPS cells rather than the embryonic stem cells to avoid the controversy.
If stem cell treatment becomes widespread in DTC companies I think that the companies should be strictly regulated. A potential problem of DTC stem cell treatment is that it could turn the public against stem cell research due to a lack of "guaranteed results" or misinformation about stem cells. Stem cell research could provide answers to many health problems, but it should be regulated by the FDA to avoid any set-backs or harm to the consumers.
I agree with the court's decision to throw out the lawsuit that was barring scientists from preforming embryonic stem cell research. The positive outcomes that are possible within this field are countless, and I think that forcing people to bring their ES cell research to a halt is detrimental to society. I do understand the ethical concerns about ES cell research, but I feel like many of the people raising these concerns would think twice about halting this research if they knew that it might one day save them, or someone that they love.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how this court decision will affect the current research being done on bone regeneration. The article did say that the VSEL cell research was promising; however, it didn't say very much about ES cell research. Maybe with the ES cell research ban lifted, scientists working in the field of bone regeneration will be able to use ES cells instead of VSEL cells to get better results. Also, I think that more scientists will move back to working with ES cells because the uncertainty of the legal consequences for them has been lifted.
I doubt that ES cell treatment will become extremely widespread in DTC companies because people have such an ethical problem with it. I don't know if there are enough people out there willing to purchase ES cell treatment directly from these companies without having some kind of moral problem with it. If DTC companies do start marketing ES cell treatment, I think that it will be important for these companies to monitored closely to prevent any kind of misuse of this treatment.
I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to throw out the lawsuit that would have blocked federal funding of all research on human embryonic stem cells. The reason why I agree with the decision is because I believe that stem cell research can potentially yield some results that can help us better countless lives. I am aware that there is still an ethical dilemma on using stem cells for research mostly because of the how stem cells are usually obtained. But I think that the potential benefits of the research outweigh some of the concerns that we might have. By throwing out the lawsuit the Supreme Court has ensured that research involving stem cells can have a better chance of getting funding they might not have received because of the ban.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court's decision to throw out the lawsuit, research is needed in all areas of science to ensure the best understanding possible about how these things work. Although the findings of adult stem cells working in bones regeneration are groundbreaking, many labs have invested large sums of money and amounts of time into research of embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can be better in some cases but are not always the answer. There are a large amount of ethical issues in using embryonic stem cells but reducing research will not necessarily reduce the occasions where woman make a choice and they could donate these cells. These stem cells have the potential to save millions of lives and that should not be taken away. A ban over research overall is not right, I think this can be revisited if the study in which they are being donated is not extracting these in the proper manner. The court’s decision should not affect the work which has already been done in bone regeneration as this has already been shown to work. Embryonic stem cells are much more difficult to come across so they should not be used for something which is already working well.
ReplyDeleteThere are many different sides to this story; people who are against the use of embryonic stem cells would argue that their use in research is risking the life of any unborn child. The researchers see them not being used as risking the lives of the population. No one can argue that this is not a heated debate but the bottom line is embryonic stem cells are the best for research purposes. These stem cells are projected to "cure" many of the leading causes of death in the United States. Obesity is a major issue along with that comes diabetes, heart disease, and many other complications. Embryonic stem cells are being looked at to cure both of those and help the US be on a level much like other industrialized countries with life expectancy.
Seeing the major advancements which can be accomplished with this research, there are also some draw backs. In a capitalistic economy which is so reliant on technology, someone is bound to get this on the internet and accept these cells online. This can cause an array of different issues. These people will not necessarily have enough background in this field to properly extract or use these cells. There is need for some regulation not on the research itself but on the people who are conducting it. Everyone wants to earn money off of things like this but it should not be made possible. Consumer direct is not the way to go with this type of product.
I found this article extremely interesting on what the future for stem cell research can bring out for science: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/diabetes/articles/2009/03/13/stem-cells-10-diseases-they-may--or-may-not--cure
I am in full support of the Supreme Court's decision to discard the lawsuit that would prevent scientists from conducting embryonic stem cell research. While I respect the viewpoint of those who oppose ES cell research for ethical and religious reasons, I don't see any positive outcome of forcing those morals onto people whose health can be greatly improved with the use of stem cells. Frankly, opponents of ES cell research should exercise their right to refuse having any personal procedures involving stem cells, but it wouldn't be fair to those who have no objections and need treatment to be constrained by these strict moral codes. Everyone should be able to make their own decision that they feel is best for them.
ReplyDeleteI thought the discussion on VSEL cell research was very interesting. VSEL cells seem like a happy medium for proponents and opponents of ES cell research- they can be used in the same way as ES cells, but they come without the ethical implications. However, as Liz pointed out, VSEL cells may not be the best or easiest to study. This new area of research looks promising nevertheless, and I'm excited to see how it will be used for bone regeneration and other medical therapies as well. Along with many of my classmates though, I do worry about DTC companies offering stem cell treatment to the general public because a good number of people are misinformed. The government should be working on a policy to strictly regulate DTC companies.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the court’s decision. The technology of stem cell research is very beneficial and many things develop from these advancements. There is a strong divide between those who protest it and those in support of it with seemingly no common middle ground. I feel that many protesters don’t fully understand the benefits gained from this research. Like anything involving human life, ethical debates arise, but it must be decided if people can move past their concerns in order to support an opportunity to help people, potentially a relative or even themselves. There does indeed need to be regulation to ensure the quality and that these procedures are legitimately helping enhance human life.
As many others have stated, I also agree with the court's decision to throw out this lawsuit. I always tend to look at and weigh the benefits with the negatives. It seems like, in this case, that the possible benefits that may grow from scientific research regarding stem cells outweighs the possible ethical implications that may arise. As Mia mentioned, certain factors need to be taken into account when conducting research regarding individuals, such as informed consent. Clearly, if the individuals involved are mentally stable and have given their full informed consent to go on, I see no reason why there would be any other ethical issues to address. There will always be individuals who are completely against any type of stem cell research, but I see hope for new breakthroughs via research to benefit the greater good of society. Compared to stem cell research involving fetuses, it is a major advantage using VSEL cells as this may eliminate some of the ethical and religious arguments against stem cell research in general, as mentioned in the article.
ReplyDeleteI am, however, a bit concerned about how DTC companies may go about using this type of research and how they will convey it to the general public. Unfortunately how we have learned in class, many people are not very educated or informed about what really goes on in stem cell research or getting genetically tested, and thus, this may cause some issues when DTC companies decide to become involved. I can only hope that DTC companies will not misuse this treatment and furthermore, that individuals who are healthy will not seek out any forms of unnecessary treatment through the DTC companies offering ES cell treatment.
I believe the Supreme Court ruling to throw out a case again stem cell research was in the best interest of science, health, and individuals. The argument against stem cell research is based purely on moral and ethical dilemmas of a small groups of Americans and does not take the intended benefits of stem cell research into affect. It is one thing to choose not to endorse or be treated by stem cell therapy but it is unreasonable to insist that the medical community must abide by the same principles. In essence, it is not fair for a small group of individuals to inflict their personal ideals onto a nation, especially when it could be at the cost of health and disease innovation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with my fellow classmates that the decision to throw our the case that would halt all federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. While this topic is a very controversial one and has ethical considerations that must not be forgotten, the scientific promise of the good that could come from stem cells is undeniable. More research needs to be done in order to realize the full potential of this technology, but it is already clear the implications would be life changing, in a good way, for so many people. I think the Supreme Court made a wise decision not to hear the case. Though, as with new technology, there are millions of people who do not understand it fully and could be easily taken advantage of by companies seeking to get rich quick off of the excitement over this research. Similar to the hype around direct to consumer genetic testing, I think that this would have to be carefully regulated and observed, though does have the potential to become a wonderful asset to medical services today.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court decision to unblock federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Although there are many ethical issues that can arise from this issue, in the end, I believe that the research of embryonic stem cells will provide more benefits to human life, than harms. The research done on VSELs has proven how stem cells can be used for the better and how they can be used in a way to avoid many ethical dilemmas involved with stem-cell research. Possible implications the court decision could have on bone regeneration are less invasive ways of speeding up bone recovery in patients with traumatic bone injuries and dental patients. This could provide individuals who have gone through severe bone trauma to regain their life prior to the incidence of the trauma. Individuals with degenerative bone diseases like osteoporosis may not have to live with such a severe bone disease and thus the quality of their daily lives does not have to be significantly reduced. Overall, the use of stem-cell research will provide more harm than good, and I think that the current research available has proven that. However, I agree with my classmates that there are a lot of individuals who will not be able to fully understand these new technologies and therefore will be easy for companies to take advantage of. If there were restrictions in place to prevent companies from taking advantage of consumers, I think that these new procedures will have a positive outcome in medicine overall.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra Kramer
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of my fellow classmates in support of the court's decision to throw the case out and continue with research for stem cells. There is so much potential that outweighs the negative aspects in the health care field for stem cell research and bettering quality of life. As stated in the article, each iPS cell will be evaluated and made sure they are up to human standards.
I also feel that we are are doing so many other controversial research and experiments (such as previous blog post topics) that are ethically controversial, so why wouldn't this research be okay as well? Not that that makes it okay, but if we are going by standards our social system has set up, this would fit in. There are definitely worries that come along with this research, but believe that worries are going to come with any kind of research, and that they are not always major enough to stop research from potentially helping many people.
I agree with the courts decision not to block federal funding of all research on human embryonic stem cells. I believe that there is still a lot to be learned about the potentials of human adult stem cells. The money from the federal funding allows scientists and researchers to learn more about bone regeneration from adult stem cells. It also helps that the procedure to extract adult stem cells is minimally invasive. I suspect that this will make people more willing to participate in bone regeneration research. With more research we can more accurately speculate as to what the potential benefits and harms of bone regeneration will be.
ReplyDeleteThe website below discusses the benefits of adult stem cell research. It also promotes the elimination of using human embryonic cells at all because they have yet to lead to any treatments. VSEL stem cells have produced treatments for over 73 medical conditions and poses no ethical threat because the cells come directly from the person who needs them. The potential benefits of adult stem cell research is too important not to dabble in.
http://www.mccl.org/ascr-basics.html
I definitely agree with the decision of the supreme court. I think that it's an extremely complicated issue, and we need to respect everyone's beliefs and feelings on the matter. With that being said, I personally believe that there is so much we can learn and benefit from stem cell research, as many of my class mates have said above.
ReplyDeleteI will also admit that I do not know everything there is to know about the methods of stem cell research, and it's hard to make an educated decision because of this. But it appears to me that the cost benefit ratio is definitely in favor of continuing the research that could make ENORMOUS leaps in health care and our understanding of it. But I do also question the ethics of it all at the same time. It's definitely a complicated issue.
I see both sides of this argument. If the court decided to keep the case, we would be saving an enormous amount of money. We spend this amount of money on research alone in hopes of reaching our goal of getting a positive outcome. While we focus on that, people tend to forget that there is the possibility of not being able to discover anything. That is also a reason why people would want to keep the case while the more hopeful people would want the court to discard the case. To be honest, I do not know if I agree or disagree. The court’s decision seems to have a final say in the discussion of bone regeneration; however, this is in regard of federal funding and in support of prohibiting further research. If the court decides to go with the case, then funds for research will be cut. If the court decides to not go with it (in the end, this was the decision of the court), then the research and the funding for it will continue. Potential benefits include more research will lead us to better understanding of what VSEL stem cells are and their abilities, the probability of using this research to advance the medical field or help patients increases, etc. As for the harms, I think that if the research results in nothing having been discovered, then monetary loss would be the largest loss/harm to the government.
ReplyDeleteI believe the supreme court made the correct decision to throw out this case and continue the open possibility of researching stem cells. Although there are many ethical issues related and many people from various backgrounds have conflicting views; from a scientific stand point, it is important to progress medicine so the medical community can provide people with the best service. Just because one group of people may feel conflicted by ethical dilemmas, it is important to continue this research in the hope that the medical field can be expanded. There are many people who could greatly benefit from this new research on stem cell research including cancer patients, patients with muscle and bone issues, and many other areas. The supreme court has made the correct decision to allow science and our medical technologies to progress in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the court’s decision. While the decision may increase research on ES cells and may lead to extremely beneficial scientific advances, I do not feel this is the right route to such advances. Now that the court has allowed for continued federal funding of ES cell research, I’m afraid researchers will shy away from research using iPS cells. The court's decision ultimately discourages iPS cell research, since ES cells are easier to cultivate and may have less complications (such as less potential for genetic mutations). While there may be a larger body of research on ES cells and ES cells are currently seen as a “gold standard” in stem cell research, I feel that iPS cells are the better long-term choice for stem cell research. iPS cells allow for patient-specific recovery; new cells could be generated using a patient’s own adult iPS cells. Also, the ethical concerns regarding ES cells have been long debated. It would be better to ultimately move toward using iPS cells instead.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think the court’s decision will overshadow the improvements in research on bone regeneration with iPS cells, since researchers will have access to more federal funding to use ES cells. Benefits of the decision may include new technologies and medical treatments using ES cells, and an increase in scientific research due to increased federal funding. The harms of the decision involve the ethical harms associated with embryonic stem cell research, such as those who believe the embryos being used for research are considered individuals who deserve the right to life, and right to protection from being used solely for research.
Here’s an article comparing the use of ES cells to the use of iPS cells:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22102565
Like many others in the class, I agree with the Supreme Court's decision to throw the lawsuit out. As Jeannie pointed out, many people felt it would be unethical to use ES cells because we used to extract them from fetuses, however, as stated in the Science Daily, this problem is avoided by the ability to now extract from adult cells. By taking ES cells from adults and not from fetuses, it eliminates the fear of scientists "playing God" and tampering with life and death, and allows people to focus on the fact that VSELs can improve the health of many.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, though it is a risk to spend funding on this area of research, VSELs have proven to show some positive results already, and continued research and funding can lead to a better understanding of how to use this these stem cells effectively in the medical field. Therefore, as others such as Chris have stated, I would have to say that the risk of spending funds on this project as well as the risk of never discovering more than we already know are worth the potential benefits that seem to loom ahead.
Lastly, I found Grace's point about discovering iPS cells being a silver-lining due to this lawsuit very interesting. I would have to agree, that at times, when things are going so well, we as human beings tend to focus on one area, and forget to think outside the box. Though I agree with the Supreme Court's decision, I think it would be hard to deny the benefit of forcing the great minds in this field of study to focus on alternative ways to reach the end goal. Now that we know that options are available and that more may become available in the future, we can use many tools to research this project as opposed to focusing on just one method.
I am certainly in support of the Supreme Court's decision regarding the de-regulation of Embryonic Stem Cell research. I feel that companies such as Geron should be able to continue researching the possible clinical value of ES cells, as long as they are acquired and used in an ethical manner. It is my understanding that the controversy arises from the perpetual "loss of potential life" debate. This is definitely a sensitive topic, especially when brought up in legislation. However, ES cells can be harvested from a variety of sources that can be considered harmless, such as umbilical cords. Personally, I feel that research on ES cells can further our understanding of medical conditions and treatments. More research can also increase our understanding of related stem cell therapies and behaviors. IPS cells are certainly a viable alternative, but as the article states, these are more expensive to produce and are decades behind in clinical research. Hopefully this act of de-regulation will foster the advancement of all types of stem cells to uncover their true potential. Government funding for this type of research is a step in the right direction. If the government is permitted to fund other types of bio-medical research in this country, ES cell research should be included as well.
ReplyDeleteNow that stem cell research is going to be conducted on adult stem cells the research should no longer be held up by the courts. The previous issues found with using the stem cells of fetuses are no longer valid. There is no controversy over how the stem cells are obtained and how they are being used. Research should be encouraged as the area seems very promising to the medical field and future medical remedies. Also, the iPS cells do not seem like the best alternative to being able to use stem cells for research. There are a lot of issues with the cells that make progress more difficult. By allowing research to continue the bone regeneration could become a possibility for many patients that could benefit from the treatment. However, this does not mean that the potential harms are nonexistent. People could spend money on the services only to find that it is not possible for them or that it is not a "one size fits all" type of treatment. People could be led into spending money on a product that will not help in their treatment at all. There would also be precedents in place so that the stem cells would only be used for the bone regeneration treatment and not used in other research or experiments. There could be a misuse of the stem cells harvested if proper steps are not taken.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the courts decision to allow ES research to continue. I believe it is important to explore as many options as possible in regards to bettering and improving human life. The only downside to the decision is that many people do have moral and ethical opposition to it mostly based on religious beliefs and interpretations. Fortunately, IPS research does not have this issue due to the mature state the cells are in due to them being found in adult tissue. This is a blessing because it means this research is not bogged down by questions such as if it is ethical or not. One thing that I was wary of as I was reading the articles was the claim that a patent was trying to be placed on the bone regeneration IPS research. The courts decision could serve to promote faster progress on the bone regeneration research by now allowing scientists to incorporate both types of cells in to the process, possible allowing one type of cell to do a function the other was somehow not capable of. I am wary of this because I believe it is best to keep a subject of research open to as many groups as possible to promote multiple ideas and innovation in an area which can have so much benefit. Bring more minds to bear on the subject can only help to foster more thought and development.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the courts decision to allow ES research to continue. I believe it is important to explore as many options as possible in regards to bettering and improving human life. The only downside to the decision is that many people do have moral and ethical opposition to it mostly based on religious beliefs and interpretations. Fortunately, IPS research does not have this issue due to the mature state the cells are in due to them being found in adult tissue. This is a blessing because it means this research is not bogged down by questions such as if it is ethical or not. One thing that I was wary of as I was reading the articles was the claim that a patent was trying to be placed on the bone regeneration IPS research. The courts decision could serve to promote faster progress on the bone regeneration research by now allowing scientists to incorporate both types of cells in to the process, possible allowing one type of cell to do a function the other was somehow not capable of. I am wary of this because I believe it is best to keep a subject of research open to as many groups as possible to promote multiple ideas and innovation in an area which can have so much benefit. Bring more minds to bear on the subject can only help to foster more thought and development.
ReplyDeleteI support the Supreme Court's decision regarding the de-regulation of Embryonic Stem Cell research. I believe it is unethical to use ES cells solely from the fact that they are extracted from a fetus. Although I have an appreciation for science and always making advances, I just don't think it's ethical the way they used the ES cells. Although I may not exactly agree with the stem cell research, I do understand and appreciate the necessity to make advances in the science world. The cost benefit ratio favors continuing the research that could make great advancements. The pros outweigh the cons. Even writing this, I go back and forth in my head about what I personally believe, so I can see why it has been a great topic of discussion. Then comes bone regeneration. Many people could definitely benefit from the research and use of this treatment. Much like every other treatment in the medical world, it has risks. So again, we need to compare the pros and cons to see whether the pros outweigh the cons. The pros include advancement and treatments, furthering research and potentially helping a lot of people. The cons are mostly ethical issues. I also think there could be a great monetary loss.
ReplyDeleteI support the Supreme Court's decision regarding the de-regulation of Embryonic Stem Cell research. I believe it is unethical to use ES cells solely from the fact that they are extracted from a fetus. Although I have an appreciation for science and always making advances, I just don't think it's ethical the way they used the ES cells. Although I may not exactly agree with the stem cell research, I do understand and appreciate the necessity to make advances in the science world. The cost benefit ratio favors continuing the research that could make great advancements. The pros outweigh the cons. Even writing this, I go back and forth in my head about what I personally believe, so I can see why it has been a great topic of discussion. Then comes bone regeneration. Many people could definitely benefit from the research and use of this treatment. Much like every other treatment in the medical world, it has risks. So again, we need to compare the pros and cons to see whether the pros outweigh the cons. The pros include advancement and treatments, furthering research and potentially helping a lot of people. The cons are mostly ethical issues. I also think there could be a great monetary loss.
ReplyDeleteThe article from the Nature Journal suggests that the court’s decision to not hear the case this January sets a precedent of approval for iPS cells and also ES cells. I know very little about constitutional law, but I have the feeling that interpreting the Supreme Court’s decision this way is jumping to conclusions. As the article portrays, many researchers are making a cautious decision not to rely on ES cells for future research, because they still feel unsure about the stability of the future of statutory approval of ES cells. Some researchers prefer to use iPS cells in fear that they may not be able to complete their research if ES cells are ever deemed unconstitutional. Because ES cells are considered the golden standard, it is unfortunate that scientists feel pressured not to use ES cells even though they are better understood. However, there is a silver lining; it seems worthwhile to invest resources into iPS cell-based research in order to get the understanding and application of iPS cells up to speed with that of ES cells. Using iPS cells may not be the fastest route to discovery, but for now it seems to be the most stable. This discussion is one vein of a larger problem regarding the orientation of the present government. Our current administration is very invested in making decisions that affect small-scale scientific and medical experimentation and growth. This seems to be a trend in governance based on the rulings of the Senate and the Supreme Court. Perhaps in future years, the large breadth of legal governance that we see now will decrease, and scientists can enjoy the freedom of a more laissez-faire government. This leads to a separate discussion, which considers the advantages and disadvantages of lawmakers making decisions about the ethicality and practicality of medical and scientific experiments.
ReplyDeleteOn a different thought, the article on bone regeneration is alarmingly vague. After reading this article I had many questions. First, how do they extract the cells? The article mentions that cell extraction is “minimally invasive” but there is no further detail. Is it a simple cheek swap? Do they have to take a biopsy of your teeth? After the cells are extracted, what is the process? The article mentions that Neostem would be responsible for “purifying the special stem cells.” What does purifying entail? Additionally, there is surprising little information given on the background of Neostem. Is this a private company, or is associated with another university or institution? Who runs Neostem – PhDs, MDs, etc? Finally, how exactly to they implant the “purified” cells back into the patient? What is this process and how has it been tested? What animals have they experimented on so far and what have been the results? As you can see, this article leaves a lot to be desired. Until these questions on the basics of the scientific research can be answered, it seems premature to consider the affects of a Supreme Court ruling regarding application of this technique.
Like most of my classmates, I agree with the decision of the supreme court on stem cell research. There will always be controversy when it comes to researching anything related to the human body, especially with something that has the potential for life, but I think that in the end, there are more benefits than drawbacks. Putting ethics and arguing when something is first considered living aside, if we can learn how to use stem cells properly in medical treatment, then everyone will benefit from this kind of research because it will lead to better health outcomes. We can use this to treat so many of the disease burdens we have now like diabetes, cancers, Alzheimer's and anything related to cell death or disease.
ReplyDeleteThe court case will also aid in bone regeneration research because they can start on ES cell research, which would be more viable than iPS or induced stem cells. A harm though, may be when stem cell research companies start selling products that claim to cure certain diseases when the research may not actually fully back it up, as we have seen in other DTC genetic products. So we will need to regulate this growing field once stem cell therapies start coming onto the market.
If the Medical Ethics class has taught me a lot last semester. One of the messages I took from the class is the sensitive topic of embryonic stem cells. The ethics of it all are quite unclear, there are those who say it is ethically permissible, others who say that it is impermissible, and some who take both sides. Since one article had mentioned the iPS cells, my opinion is to use iPS cells rather than ES cells. The point is to remove any ethical restraints that may hinder research. The iPS cells, due to their artificial nature, have no reason to be scrutinized by ethical code and thus, no ethical problems.
ReplyDeleteThe court's decision may cause the bone regeneration with University of Michigan to have the green light for use of actual ES cells without loss of funding. The benefit of use of ES cells will be skipping all of the pre-operational steps such as isolating stem cells from existing cells. They can potentially cut costs, but in turn, cause potential loss of consumers whom may have issues of the ethics of their work, if they used ES cells instead of their current process.
When looking at direct-to-consumer products, allowing stem cells to be sold can lead to many problems. Since the DTC products have no surveillance over how consumers use the products, consumers as well as producers can easily abuse stem cells. Almost anything can be treated with stem cells, which will lead producers to provide a "cure-all" product that integrates stem cells. Consumers will use this "cure-all" for anything and everything medical related, which can produce a false sense of health. Stem cells cannot cure everything, especially in situations where surgery is required.
If the Medical Ethics class has taught me a lot last semester. One of the messages I took from the class is the sensitive topic of embryonic stem cells. The ethics of it all are quite unclear, there are those who say it is ethically permissible, others who say that it is impermissible, and some who take both sides. Since one article had mentioned the iPS cells, my opinion is to use iPS cells rather than ES cells. The point is to remove any ethical restraints that may hinder research. The iPS cells, due to their artificial nature, have no reason to be scrutinized by ethical code and thus, no ethical problems.
ReplyDeleteThe court's decision may cause the bone regeneration with University of Michigan to have the green light for use of actual ES cells without loss of funding. The benefit of use of ES cells will be skipping all of the pre-operational steps such as isolating stem cells from existing cells. They can potentially cut costs, but in turn, cause potential loss of consumers whom may have issues of the ethics of their work, if they used ES cells instead of their current process.
When looking at direct-to-consumer products, allowing stem cells to be sold can lead to many problems. Since the DTC products have no surveillance over how consumers use the products, consumers as well as producers can easily abuse stem cells. Almost anything can be treated with stem cells, which will lead producers to provide a "cure-all" product that integrates stem cells. Consumers will use this "cure-all" for anything and everything medical related, which can produce a false sense of health. Stem cells cannot cure everything, especially in situations where surgery is required.
ReplyDeleteI believe that stem cell research is critically important to the next stages in scientific advancement and disease research. I agree with Monya Baker, the author of the article in Nature, when she states, “the real allure of iPS cells was the promise of genetically matched tissues.” From personal experience I can say that this technology would have a great impact on my life. I have suffered from Chondromalacia patellae for the past 5 years, a condition in which the cartridge in my knee deteriorates and can cause serious debilitating effects. After perusing many treatments and physical therapy for years, I have begun to explore the option of cartilage regeneration therapy with my physician at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a leading institution in the field of cell regeneration. The ability to regenerate my body’s own tissues is a promising development that I hope could one day improve my quality of life. Here are a few articles regarding this treatment:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130124163246.htm
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/tissue_engineers_report_knee_cartilage_repair_success_with_new_biomaterial
Regarding the court decision, I believe that setting such precedents indicate a progressive shift in legal decision making processes. Too often, laws and bureaucracy lag behind scientific advancements, so it is important to recognize when the leaders of the legal system acknowledge the merit of scientific advances. Sadly, I believe the general public does not have a comprehensive, or accurate, understanding of stem cell therapy and it is promising to note that the Supreme Court has made an educated decision, grounded in scientific facts not widespread misconceptions. I also think that it is important to note, federal funding should not be restricted to science based upon various religious beliefs since we are a secular state. Considering this fact, those who oppose stem cell research or treatments utilizing stem cells should not be forced to partake in such activities either. The various personal decision making factors that contribute to formulating one’s opinion should be grounded in accurate, scientific inquiry. Therefore, as the article states, the biggest boost from the decision of future policy shifts, “might go not to work on embryonic stem (ES) cells, but to studies of their upstart cousins, induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which are created by ‘reprogramming’ adult cells into a stem-cell-like state.”
I look forward to the next developments in stem cell research and hope that one day I can benefit from ground breaking therapies such as cartilage regeneration.
I agree with the courts decision to throw out the case against the continued research of ES cells. I feel that companies such as geron should be allowed to peruse their clinical research of ES cell while maintaining a certain code of ethics, I believe that there still will be opposition to this ruling because some people do not believe that it is ethically just to harvest ES cells. With the discovery of IPS cell I believe that maybe we have found an ethical medium. Even though cultivating these IPS cells is more expensive ultimately they do not involve the ethical implications of harvesting ES cells. Ultimately I believe that this court will expedite much of the research in the field of bone regeneration research, now scientist will have the ability to conduct this research with ES and IPS cells without the fear of being shut down.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that the court decided to "throw out" a lawsuit that was going to block the federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells because I believe in the importance of stem cell therapy in both research and in medicine. The research of stem cells is especially important to me because I have close family members and friends who can benefit from stem cell therapy. It is believed that stem cell therapy can be useful for individuals with Multiple Sclerosis and for individuals with Parkinson's. My step-grandfather is currently battling Parkinson's disease, and both my step-grandmother and my biological mother have been diagnosed with MS. My step-grandmother is becoming disabled from the degenerative disease; she can't talk very loudly and she now has trouble walking. She was a very active woman when I first met her, only about 10 years ago her and her husband owned a karate studio in MA, and now she can barely use the stairs. On the other hand, my biological mother has not had a relapse of MS in about 10 years (so we are all hoping that she won't ever have another), but as a teenager it was always heartbreaking to see my mom having to give herself shots of her medication - not to mention, she hated the side effects. When the idea of stem cell therapy came about, I remember my Mom telling me about the significance it could have for people battling MS and wishing something like that could have made our experience with the autoimmune disease less destructive.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to using stem cells for bone regeneration, the court's decision will not impact research (except for changing the ability to compare results). This is because the lawsuit was about embryonic stem cells, but bone regeneration uses very small "embryonic-like" stem cells. In other words, this technology derived cells from adults similar to the embryonic stem cells derived from a fetus, but different in that it eliminated the ethical arguments and potential side effects.
The benefit of using internet based business models for a therapy like bone regeneration is that it eliminates disparities created by lack of physical access to a health care provider. The disadvantage is that this form of marketing is hard to regulate and can lead to confusion in insurance coverage, violations of privacy, and the spread of inaccurate information.
I am glad that the court decided to "throw out" a lawsuit that was going to block the federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells because I believe in the importance of stem cell therapy in both research and in medicine. The research of stem cells is especially important to me because I have close family members and friends who can benefit from stem cell therapy. It is believed that stem cell therapy can be useful for individuals with Multiple Sclerosis and for individuals with Parkinson's. My step-grandfather is currently battling Parkinson's disease, and both my step-grandmother and my biological mother have been diagnosed with MS. My step-grandmother is becoming disabled from the degenerative disease; she can't talk very loudly and she now has trouble walking. She was a very active woman when I first met her, only about 10 years ago her and her husband owned a karate studio in MA, and now she can barely use the stairs. On the other hand, my biological mother has not had a relapse of MS in about 10 years (so we are all hoping that she won't ever have another), but as a teenager it was always heartbreaking to see my mom having to give herself shots of her medication - not to mention, she hated the side effects. When the idea of stem cell therapy came about, I remember my Mom telling me about the significance it could have for people battling MS and wishing something like that could have made our experience with the autoimmune disease less destructive.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to using stem cells for bone regeneration, the court's decision will not impact research (except for changing the ability to compare results). This is because the lawsuit was about embryonic stem cells, but bone regeneration uses very small "embryonic-like" stem cells. In other words, this technology derived cells from adults similar to the embryonic stem cells derived from a fetus, but different in that it eliminated the ethical arguments and potential side effects.
The benefit of using internet based business models for a therapy like bone regeneration is that it eliminates disparities created by lack of physical access to a health care provider. The disadvantage is that this form of marketing is hard to regulate and can lead to confusion in insurance coverage, violations of privacy, and the spread of inaccurate information.
I agree with the court's decision and the opinion of most of my classmates, to dismiss the lawsuit and lift the ban against human embryonic stem cell research. I understand that many have strong opinions surrounding the ethical issues around research using cells from embryos, however the benefits to such research are much greater in my opinion. Research from stem cells can lead to groundbreaking cures and solutions to many diseases and even disabilities, as mentioned in both of the articles. To stop this research would be depriving us of revolutionary treatments.
ReplyDeleteThough I think the IPS cells are the solution to the ethical dilemma, I do not think researchers will use this method now that the court has decided to throw out the case of ES cells. As stated in the article, it is a much more expensive and extensive process to create the IPS cells, and they even have to be tested for possible mutations after the process. Because of this, I think it will be rare for scientists to choose using IPS cells solely because of the ethical concerns of a small percentage of the population. Though I think IPS cells should be the method to continue research, I look forward to the advancements to come like those coming from University of Michigan School of Dentistry and New York-based NeoStem Inc. concerning bone regeneration.
The general consensus amongst my classmates, including mine, is that the supreme court made a good decision. The potential for stem cell research is still undeniable and untapped; because stem cells have the capability of generating "perfectly matched specialized tissues," their potential for facilitating rehabilitation in a vast majority of medical issues is enormous. Moreover, in the context of bone regeneration, access to this type of treatment may have the potential to become easy and cheaper. With the accessibility of the internet, competition will potentially be fostered, driving prices down and helping the public receive this care at an affordable cost.
ReplyDeleteReturning to stem cell research, I think one of the major concerns was rooted in the fact that the stem cells were being retrieved from fetuses. By using pluripotent stem cells instead, this ethical issue is avoided and stem cell research can still performed. While research has not been scientifically scrutinized in China, the efficacy of stem cells in use for repairing motor skills in Parkinsons and many other conditions have been claimed by various doctors. Because of this recent ruling, I strongly look forward to the US re-entering this field of research using the scientific method.
http://www.nature.com/news/china-s-stem-cell-rules-go-unheeded-1.10410
Like many of my classmates I agree with this court decision because it paves the way for a new road of research that can be done with ES cells. Stem cell research is an incredibly promising field as suggested in the bone regeneration article and if obtained in an ethical and moral manner I do not see anything wrong with the use of embryonic stem cells. I truly believe the benefits outweigh the risks in this situation. Moreover,embryonic stem cells are much easier to work with than human induced pluripotent stem cells. I don't think this decision will have much of an impact on bone regeneration since a different type of stem cell is used in that situation. However, regeneration of tissues may be more likely to occur with the use of embryonic stem cells.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with the Supreme Court's decision- any possibilities of advancing scientific research is groundbreaking and critical in our current technological age. We have so many opportunities in opening up to a world of medical possibilities and developments to help people around the globe. Of course there are always ethical issues that must be resolved and boundaries must be set, but pursuing stem cell research means greater benefits in research and cheaper, easier access to health help for the general public. I have always been in favor of furthering research and any scientific developments if there are possibilities available, and this is no different. Stem cell research developments deserve funding-
ReplyDeleteI, like nearly all of my classmates, agree with the court's decision. Stem cell research is clearly promising in the medical sciences. In the future, many of us may be directly affected by advancements made possible by stem cell research, if not at least someone who we care about. I do not think I have anything unique to add to this conversation that hasn't already been said. But, I do think it would be interesting to think about how the genomics class consensus could be very different at another college. Maybe a college that is very conservative compared to our very liberal BU?
ReplyDeleteHello! I simply wish to give an enormous thumbs up for
ReplyDeletethe nice information you’ve right here on this post. I might be coming again to your
blog for extra soon.
my site :: SEO
Whats up! I simply want to give a huge thumbs up for the good data you’ve gotten here on this post.
ReplyDeleteI will probably be coming back to your weblog for more soon.
Stop by my blog post: siemens jobs
Hello! I simply wish to give an enormous thumbs up for the good info you might have
ReplyDeletehere on this post. I can be coming back to your blog for more
soon.
my weblog: stem cell therapy reviews
Hello! I just would like to give a huge thumbs up for the nice information
ReplyDeleteyou have got here on this post. I will likely be coming again
to your weblog for extra soon.
Feel free to visit my site: cosa nostra semper fi lyrics
Hello! I simply wish to give an enormous thumbs up for the nice data you will have here on this post.
ReplyDeleteI can be coming back to your weblog for more soon.
Here is my web-site - seo in guk eunji all for you live
Hey! I just want to give a huge thumbs up for the nice information you’ve gotten here on this post.
ReplyDeleteI might be coming again to your blog for extra soon.
Also visit my web blog; seoul garden restaurant malaysia penang
Whats up! I just would like to give an enormous thumbs up for the good info
ReplyDeleteyou have here on this post. I might be coming back to your weblog for
extra soon.
Look into my page: seovec login page
Hi there! I simply wish to give an enormous thumbs up for the great
ReplyDeleteinfo you have here on this post. I will probably be coming back to
your blog for more soon.
my weblog; semi truck accessories catalog
Good day! I just would like to give a huge thumbs up for the good data you’ve here on this post.
ReplyDeleteI can be coming back to your blog for more soon.
Here is my homepage ... seohyun we got married live stream
Hello! I simply want to give an enormous thumbs up for the good info you might have right here
ReplyDeleteon this post. I will likely be coming again to your weblog for extra soon.
Also visit my webpage - semolina flour nutritional information
Good day! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs up for the nice data you could have right here on this post.
ReplyDeleteI can be coming back to your blog for extra soon.
My web-site ... 網站排名
Hey! I just would like to give an enormous thumbs up for the nice
ReplyDeletedata you’ve gotten right here on this post. I might be coming back to your blog
for extra soon.
My homepage: yonghwa seohyun news 2013
Hiya! I just wish to give a huge thumbs up for the good
ReplyDeleteinformation you could have right here on this post.
I can be coming again to your blog for extra soon.
my web-site: seohyun jung yong hwa kiss
Hiya! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs up for the great information you’ve right here on this post.
ReplyDeleteI shall be coming back to your weblog for more soon.
Here is my weblog: sempron processor 140
Hey! I simply wish to give an enormous thumbs up for the nice info you may
ReplyDeletehave here on this post. I can be coming back to your blog for
extra soon.
Feel free to visit my webpage; champions league semi final
Hello! I just would like to give a huge thumbs up for
ReplyDeletethe great information you’ve right here on this post.
I can be coming again to your blog for more soon.
my page - colourful semantics words
Hi there! I just wish to give a huge thumbs up for the nice information you have got right here on this post.
ReplyDeleteI can be coming again to your weblog for more soon.
Feel free to visit my webpage y.j. yoon seoul national university (snu) seoul south korea
Hi there! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs
ReplyDeleteup for the good information you’ve gotten right here on
this post. I can be coming again to your blog for more soon.
Here is my homepage ... queen seon deok episodes english
Howdy! I just want to give an enormous thumbs up
ReplyDeletefor the great information you have here on this post.
I will probably be coming again to your weblog for more soon.
Feel free to visit my blog kipling seoul backpack sale
The hard part is training your mind to think backwards, so one technique is to think back on birthdays, holidays or special events than as you get better at thinking back concentrate on details of the events and sooner of latter you
ReplyDeletewill think of the blunder, embarrassing moment and yes even the mistake.
I believe that God is in control ultimately and, although we
have the freedom of choice at all times, He will bring things into our lives that allow us the choice to change,
to wake up, to grow, to move through the current quicksand we feel
stuck in and out the other side to a new level
of freedom and understanding. She doesn't want to marry any of the laird's sons who are going to be presented
to her for her hand.
Have a look at my blog post ... brave frontier hack