But it isn't more promising. I've also looked into the research, and we have having more advances in living adult stem cells and de-differentiating current cells. Again, it's not illegal for the private sector to find the research, they just don't because embryonic stem cell research is not as promising as other things. We can now de-differentiate a skin cell down to a partially differentiated stem cell. Not only is using current cells humane, but there is also no worry for the body rejecting any organs and other tissues that would be grown from them.
No we don't, what is paving the way for future therapies is genetic therapies and making advances using the stem cells of the patient.
Let me preface by saying it's nice to see folks so interested in this field of research, as it's very promising and will certainly lead to many beneficial therapies. However, I think getting an accurate picture of what's taking place will help all of us going forward. First and foremost, we should discard the belief that embryonic stem cell research is not 'promising', when in fact, the opposite is true. Consider a few of the advancements in the last two years based on embryonic stem cell research alone. In one project, pancreatic endoderm derived from human embryonic stem cells began generating insulin-producing cells, which could one day lead to a cure for diabetes. In another, researchers in the Netherlands using embryonic stem cells generated bone tissue, which could lead to new therapies for folks who have bone disorders. And it doesn't stop at these - neurodegenerative diseases, visual disorders, and even spinal repair have made incredible advances with the use of embryonic stem cell research. All of these can be gleaned via a simple internet search of scientific papers, and these are just the ones I found on the first two pages while googling.
Somatic (adult) stem cell research is equally as promising, but it is incorrect to say that somatic is
more promising, or to be fair, even less promising. The truth is we can learn plenty from each. Both are in the bleeding edge of the research arena, and to the layman, it seems like the main difference between the two is all the controversy. Putting that aside, here are some of the advantages/disadvantages between the two.
Advantages of embryonic stem cells:
1. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, and can thus differentiate into anything given the proper stimulation. Somatic stem cells are limited to their particular tissue of origin. There are studies being done to genetically alter somatic stem cells to mimic this pluripotency, but how much success those studies have met with is unknown to me, as I haven't followed up on any of them in a few years.
2. Embryonic stem cells are much more easy to isolate, culture, and grow. This is a bonus for a laboratory like ours. The protocol for somatic stem cell capture alone is 12 pages, and I have no idea how many hours that translates into because we don't do them. They are also incredibly difficult to grow from what the protocol says, and with culture failure a constant problem, you'd better have deeper pockets because you are gonna need replacement cells shipped. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, can be isolated and cultured much faster, and the procedure is not that difficult. In addition, culturing embryonic stem cells is quite easy. Feed 'em, watch the temp and pH, keep them free from contaminates, and you've got nice happy cells for the long haul. In contrast, working with somatic cell lines would entail me hiring another tech or two, and purchasing expensive laboratory equipment with no guarantee that any of the cell lines would reproduce.
Since somatic stem cells are so difficult to reproduce and are rather lethargic at doing so, their use for therapy at present is limited due to stem cell replacement therapies requiring large numbers of cells for the process.
3. Embryonic cells are less likely to have deletions, mutations, or translocations in their DNA. As in any cell, damage to the DNA structure can occur over the lifetime of the organism. Stem cells are no exception. For research purposes, you'd want the DNA to be reflective of the germline, and when it comes to embryonic stem cells, youth is king. Regeneration is faster, and they are much less likely to have suffered mutations or undesirable changes to their DNA.
Advantages of somatic stem cells
1. Somatic stem cells are not rejected in therapy because they are compatible with the body they are extracted from; in contrast, embryonic cells are not taken from the host, so the possibility of rejection exists. This is self-explanatory, obviously. Somatic stem cells are identified and isolated from the person's body, and if culture and growth can take place, they can be reintroduced with no rejection. This is why many laboratories prefer use of these stem cells in regenerative therapies.
2. Somatic stem cells have a lot of potential. With all the talk of how exciting embryonic stem cell research is, the potential of somatic stem cells gets brought up almost as an aside. How many times have we heard folks say, "They aren't as controversial, plus they have a lot of research potential". The field of somatic stem cell research is just as exciting as it's embryonic counterpart, and both certainly will lead to great developments. Even in this thread, potentiality takes a back seat, and it seems the ethics is first and foremost the topic when discussing stem cell research...which leads me to the final advantage.
3. There is little, if any, ethical dilemmas in using somatic stem cell therapies. Many folks who view the destruction of an embryo as morally wrong have a strong objection to using embryonic stem cells regardless of how compelling the research or potential to cure disease. Use of somatic stem cells represents a much more comfortable moral position to people who wish to avoid seeing an embryo used in such a way.
Hope this helped clear up any confusion. I tried to be as objective as possible, so hopefully this comes across as neutral to both sides.