Is there a difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research? As in, is there a noticeable difference between the stem cells from different sources, potentially offering different results/rewards?
To be honest, I have never worked with somatic stem cells (or "adult" stem cells as they are called in the news), so my knowledge of that type of research is very limited. I can tell you a little about them, but nothing more than what you already know. On and off for the last thirteen years, i've worked with universities performing embryonic research, although the lack of funding was a huge problem for many labs, so more projects remained "on the drawing table" than those that actually got off.
Speaking from a lab perspective, I can tell you my experiences with embryonic stem cells. First off, they are incredibly easy to isolate. You get an embryo, you extract the stem cells. Put them in culture and incubate them, and they grow like wildfire. Once they are confluent, we'll do our studies and then ship them back to the university along with our data, where I imagine they'll do their own projects.
From a research perspective, folks like embryonic stem cells for their - $10 word incoming -
pluripotency, which is just a fancy-shmancy way of saying these cells will develop into whatever you want them to develop into given the right stimulation. This makes research pretty easy, and you don't have to put up with a lot of extra equipment and drawn-out processes to work with them. From what I understand, somatic stem cells are a pain that way, in addition to them suddenly springing up tumor-lines out of the blue and being prone to contamination. However, I have no firsthand knowledge of this, as I never worked with them. A geneticist who has worked with both would be much more knowledgable than myself on the matter.
Personally, I think the main disagreement most people have with embryonic stem cell research is that those embryonic stem cells have/had? the potential to become a human (through the correct process, obviously).
Most of them probably object to the majority of abortions for similar reasons, and the issues are tied together (for them, at least).
I can see that, if you believe embryo = human (or the potential to be human?), or something similar/related, how you might have an issue.
Ahhh. Well, the way I look at it is that most of those embryos were on the way into the biohazard flames as they were approaching unviability. I think there is a tendency to lump an embryo in with a baby among a lot of folks, and probably assume that these embryos were on their way to becoming an actually baby before the process of stem cell research interrupted all that. To be honest, I just do the research, and I don't dwell on the potentiality of it all. I know it's a big deal among many folks, but i'd be curious to see if that would change if many folks realize that it's no different than IV fertilization, when it comes right down to it.
Good points, brutha.